DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/218/2016

No. DF/ Central/

M/s Amshee Sales

Through Partner

Harmeet Singh Bawa

B-23 Shivalik, Pansheel, Geetanjali Road,

New Delhi - 110017                                                          …..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

M/s Blazeflash Couries Pvt. Ltd.

2E/8, Second Floor, Jhandewalan Ext.

New Delhi – 110055.

M/s Tanya Enterprises

80/22B Near Gurudware Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi – 110017.                                                    …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member

                                                              ORDER                              

Rekha Rani, President

          M/s Amshee Sales (in short the complainant) filed instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that it availed services of M/s Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. (in short OP) for prompt delivery of its pharmaceutical products on two occasions.  On 24.08.2009 vide airway bill no. 208687810 it engaged the services OP1 to deliver 15 bottles of sevoflurane to Command Hospital - Southern Command, Khatad Khana, Pune 411040, Maharashtra, India.  Complainant received a letter dated 07.12.2011 from the consignee that 15 bottles of seroflurane had not been delivered to them.  Value of said consignment was Rs. 99,278.40/-. Complainant had again engaged the services of OP for delivery of 144 bottles of 250 ml. of sevoflurane packed in 10 boxes to Armed Forces Medical Stores Depot (“AFMSD”), Akurli Cross Road No. 3, Kandivili East, Mumbai vide airway bill no. 204235056 dated 30.10.2010.  The consignment was to be delivered to the destination within 4 days which was however extended on request of the complainant.  Out of 10 boxes only 9 were delivered and 1 box was missing value whereof was Rs. 96,223.68/-. OP did not compensate the complainant regarding the loss of missing products despite receipt of legal notice.  Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs. 99,278.40/- with interest @ 18% per annum in respect of the first order from 28.08.2009 to the date of payment.  Further direction is sought in respect of second order to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 96,223.68/- with interest @ 18 % per annum w.e.f. 30.10.2010 and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and loss of business to the complainant.

          On receipt of the notice of the instant complaint, OP appeared and filed reply wherein inter-alia the claim was resisted on the ground that complainant has clubbed two different causes of action with a fraudulent and malafide objective to bring the first consignment note within the period of limitation.  It is also stated that OP’s liability is limited to booked consignment to Rs. 100/- only.

          The instant complaint was dismissed in default by our predecessor bench on 28.07.2014.  However it was restored by Hon’ble State Commission.

          On restoration of the case notice was issued to the OPs.  Vide detailed order dated 23.02.2018 they were proceeded as ex-arte.  We have perused the material on record.

          Regarding consignment no. 208687810 dated 24.08.2009 for delivery of 15 bottles of sevoflurane to Command Hospital, the claim as barred by limitation.  It is complainant’s own case that they engaged the services of OP for prompt delivery of the consignment to the destination (Para 5 of affidavit of the complainant).  Consignment was booked on 24.08.2009 and the instant complaint was filed on 17.07.2012.

          Regarding consignment no. 204235056 dated 30.10.2010 it is not in dispute that one box went missing.  In Para 25 of the written statement of OP, it was stated that their maximum liability on account of loss in transit was Rs. 100/-.  It has also come on record that OP had offered Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant to settle the claim fully and finally as a goodwill gesture which was not acceptable to the complainant.  OP is responsible for safe delivery of the consignment to its destination and cannot arbitrarily limit its liability to Rs. 100/- in case of loss of the goods in transit.  How an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was offered towards settlement of claim is not understandable as the value of 1 box lost in transit is stated total Rs. 96,223.68/-.

          One thing has not been made clear by the complainant.  It is stated in the complaint (Para 2) and even in evidence (Para 5) that the consignment was to  be delivered promptly and on time.  If first consignment no. 208687810 dated 24.08.2009 was not delivered in time, why complainant availed the services of the same OP for the second consignment no. 204235056 dated 30.10.2010.

           In the facts and circumstances of the case, OP directed to pay Rs. 96,223.68/-to the complainant with interest @ 7% per annum from 30.10.2010 till the date of payment along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

          Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

                        Announced this           Day  of                       2018.