Date of Filing:18.11.2008<br /> Date of Order:06.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2485 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Nagoba Electronics,<br /> Byraveshwara Indl., Estate,<br /> Vishwanedam Post,<br /> Near Peenya 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore-560 091,<br /> Represented by <br /> V.N. Govindraj. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Armex India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> (A Courier Company)<br /> Kodihalli Main Road,<br /> Near Ayyappaswamy Temple,<br /> Bangalore-560 008. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant dispatched a parcel containing Electronic Assembly weighing about 1.7 kgs. to his customer on 03/07/2008 through opposite party courier. Normally, this parcel should have been delivered on 06/07/2008. Unfortunately, the opposite party did not deliver the parcel to the consignee. The complainant enquired the delivery status. Complainant wrote letter on 17/07/2008 requesting opposite party to either deliver the parcel to the concerned party or return the parcel or pay an amount of Rs.7,595/- which is the value of the consignment in question. The opposite party did not care to reply to the letter. In the first week of September-2008 the representative of the opposite party telephoned and assured that they will settle the issue shortly. On 05/09/2008 the complainant again sent a registered letter requesting them to settle the matter. To this also there was no reply. Courier Company do not have any concerned for the loss. The complainant requested that the opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.18,000/- since he has suffered mental torture and loss in business.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite party has appeared and filed defense version admitting that the petitioner had booked one consignment through their agent M/s Mukund International under Airway Bill No.6104148083 on 3rd Jully-2008. Opposite party submitted that it is also the fact that the consignment was handed over to one co-loaders M/s Shakti Cargo for carriage and the same was lost in transit. The opposite party submitted that under clause 4 which is obligation of the consigner to insure the consignment at his cost. Under clause 8 the maximum liability of the opposite party is limited to Rs.1,000/- or the cost of the reconstruction of the consignment which ever is less. Amount of Rs.18,000/- demanded by the complainant against the terms of carriage. The description of the goods does not find mentioned on the face of the AWB. Subject matter of complainant is fit for deliberation before the Civil Court. It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. I have perused the complaint, defense version and documents. The complainant has produced tax invoice which is for Rs.7,595/- in respect of the consignment sent through opposite party. The complainant has produced Airway Bill No.6104148083 dated 3rd July-2008. The opposite party has admitted in the defense version that consignment was handed over and booked through their agent M/s Mukund International on 3rd July-2008 by the complainant. The opposite party has also admitted in the defense version that the consignment was handed over to co loaders M/s Shakti Cargo for carriage and same was lost in transit. As per the defense version, it is clear that the consignment was not handed over to the consignee. It is admitted that the consignment has been lost in the transit. Therefore, there is absolutely no dispute whatsoever in respect of non delivery of the consignment to the consignee. The opposite party submitted in the defense version that maximum liability of the opposite party is limited to Rs.1,000/- or the cost of the reconstruction of the consignment which ever is less. The opposite party submitted that the amount of Rs. 18,000/- claimed by the complainant is against the terms of the carriage. The opposite party has produced terms and conditions of the domestic carriage. Under clause 8 the limitation of the liability has been stated. As per this clause the liability of the opposite party company for loss of consignment shall be Rs.1,000/- or an amount of loss or damage to the documents or parcel actually sustained or the actual volume of the document or parcel as determined without regards to the commercial utility or special value to the shipper. By reading the entire sub-clause of clause 8 of terms and conditions of domestic carriage the opposite party company has to make good loss the actual loss sustained to the complainant. The opposite party has produced tax invoice the loss to the complainant was Rs.7,595/-. The opposite party bound to pay that much amount to the complainant. The opposite party cannot escape its liability by saying that the maximum limit of liability is Rs.1,000/-. Such kind of interpretation cannot be given to the clause 8 of terms and conditions of domestic carriage. Taking into consideration of all the admitted facts and circumstances of the case and loss sustained to the complainant on account of non delivery of consignment it will be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.7,595/- to the complainant though not Rs.18,000/- as claimed by the complainant. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislature, the said law is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not handing over the consignment to the consignee. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the value of the consignment along with the cost of the present proceedings. I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,595/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order as ordered above within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 12% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realization. <br /> 5. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. <br /> 6. The opposite party is directed to send the amount to the complainant directly by way of D.D/Cheque with intimation to this Forum.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> Rhr., <br />