Date of Filing       : 20.01.2017

                                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal:  30.08.2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR

PRESENT: THIRU.   J. JUSTIN DAVID., M.A., M.L.,                    .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.      K.PRAMEELA. M.Com.,                                …..MEMBER-I

                   THIRU:  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN., B.Sc., B.L.,      ….MEMBER-II

CC.No.06/2017

THIS FRIDAY THE 30^th   DAY OF AUGUST 2019

 Mr.Krishnakumar,

Proprietor,

M/s. Krishna Scientific Works,

No.15, Kannan Koil Street,

SIDCO Industrial Estate,

Pattravakkam,

Chennai -600 098.                                                                             …… Complainant.

                                                                   //Vs//

1.PT EXPRESS LINES PRIVATE LIMITED,

    Rep. by its Branch Manager,

    No.12 (Old No.95) Menambedu Road,

    Ambattur Industrial Estate,

    Chennai - 600 098.

2.PT EXPRESS LINES PRIVATE LIMITED,

   Represented by its Manager,

   No.118-B, G.N.T.Road,

   Poniammanmedu, Medhavaram,

   Chennai - 600 110.                                                                      ……...Opposite parties

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 25.07.2019 in the presence of Mr.Y.Krishnan Counsel for the complainant and Mr.N.Sathish Raja, Counsel for the opposite parties and having perused the both side documents and evidences and hearing both side arguments this Forum delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, hardship,  and monetary loss to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this litigation to the complainant.

2. Brief Averments in the complaint filed by complainant is as follows:-

The complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing scientific glass and the complainant is having many customers.  The complainant supplied glasses as per their requirements. One of his customer viz. M/s. Magnum glass works, carrying on business at V/333-C, Varekat, Abraham Tharakan Road, Alappuzha, Kerala.  The complainant manufactured glasses as per the indent given by his customer.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party being a goods transporter and expressed the fragile nature of goods and the urgent requirement of his customer.  The 1^st opposite party guaranteed and assured that the complainant goods if booked would be safely delivered to the consignee on or before 21.01.2016 as desired by the complainant’s customer.  Based on the assurance given by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant booked the consignment lot containing 12 items vide Invoice No.230 dated 14.01.2016 for a value of Rs.8868/-.  As per the business agreement, the freight charges of the 1^st opposite party would be paid by the consignee at the time of delivery of goods by the 1^st opposite party and the complainant was convinced in booking the lot with the 1^st opposite party based on the assurance that the goods would be delivered in time, but the 1^st opposite party failed to deliver the  goods to the complainant’s customer on 21.01.2016 and retained the same for the reason better known to the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party wantonly and deliberately hold the goods without any genuine reason.   The 1^st opposite party deliberately failed to deliver the consigned goods and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and contract.  The 2^nd opposite party being the corporate body is jointly liable for the act of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant caused a legal notice to both the opposite parties through his counsel on 25.03.2016 by registered post with acknowledgement due calling upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings to the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party having received the legal notice dated 30.032016 and the notice was returned by the 1^st opposite party as intimation delivered and both the parties deliberately failed to comply with the demands of the legal notice.  Due to such illegal acts of the opposite parties the complainant incurred monetary loss of the consigned goods apart from the reputation being spoiled amongst his valuable customer and the consequent mental agony sustained by the complainant cannot be compensated by any means. Hence this complaint.

3. The brief contention of written version of the opposite parties is as follows:-

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant booked goods were taxable seized by commercial Tax department, Ernakulam and consignee to be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- as commercial sale tax and the said amount paid to the commercial tax department by the 1^st opposite party’s agent and the same was disclosed to the consignee through cell phone and the consignee intimated to the complainant on 22.01.2016 and consignee refused to pay sale tax and also told that he did not want this goods. The consignee or complainant did not like to pay tax amount and freight charges to the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the goods is not delivered to the consignee and the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.240/- for freight charges and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for commercial tax and in total the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5240/- to the 1^st opposite party. The goods was seized by commercial tax department and tax was not paid by the complainant or consignee and the 1^st opposite party paid the same and intimation disclosed to the consignee and complainant but the both were not paid tax amount and freight charges to the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore the goods were not delivered to the consignee as agreed by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant caused a legal notice to both the opposite parties through his counsel on 25.03.2016 by registered post with acknowledgement card and 2^nd opposite party received the legal notice. The complainant concealed all real facts and files this false complaint with unclean hands against the opposite parties.

4. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted as their evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked.  While so on the side of the opposite parties, the proof affidavit submitted as their evidence and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked and also oral argument adduced on both sides.

5. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this forum is:-

(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost from the opposite parties?

(3) To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

6. Point No.1 & 2:-

The case of the complainant is that the complainant booked a consignment containing 12 items of scientific glass with the 1^st opposite party and they assured that the goods will be delivered in time to the consignee but as assured by the 1^st opposite party failed to deliver the goods to the complainant’s customer on 21.01.2016 and committed deficiency in service therefore the complainant filed this complaint before this forum.

7. The 1^st opposite party contended that the goods booked by the complainant but it was seized by the commercial tax department, Ernakulum. Therefore the 1^st opposite party’s agent paid a sum of Rs.5000/- as commercial tax and the above said amount payable by the consignee and the same was informed to the consignee through phone on 22.01.2016, but the consignee refused to pay the sales tax and also refused to take delivery of the goods by paying the freight charges of Rs.240/- and therefore the complainant’s goods were not delivered to the consignee and as agreed by the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. The complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Krishna Scientific Works engaged in the business and manufacturing glass and thereby the complainant used to supply the glasses to his customers as per their requirements.  The 1^st opposite party is doing goods transporting business under the name of is style as PT EXPRESS LINES PVT LTD and the 2^nd opposite party is the Manager of the 1^st opposite party.  As per the urgent requirement of one of his customer M/s.Magnum Glass Works, carrying on business at V/333-C, Varekat, Abrahan Tharakan Road, Alappuzha, Kerala the complainant has booked a consignment containing goods with the 1^st opposite party on 19.01.2016 and the same is to be deliver to the consignee at Alappuzha on or before 21.01.2016.  Ex.A1 is the copy of invoice dated 14.01.2016 in which it is clearly stated that the description of goods and value.  Ex.A1 is the copy of bill issued by the 1^st opposite party in favor of the complainant and 1^st opposite party also filed Ex.A2 and Ex.B3.  Ex.B2 is the carbon copy of the Ex.A2 and Ex.B3 is the copy of Ex.A1.  Therefore Ex.A1 and Ex.B3, Ex.A2 and Ex.B2 are one and the same documents. The 1^st opposite party also admitted that the complainant booked the goods containing the glasses with the 1^st opposite party is to be deliver to the complainant’s customer M/s.Magnum Glass Works, Varekat, Abrahan Tharakan Road, Alappuzha, Kerala.

9. The opposite party contented that as per the terms and conditions printed in Ex.B2 cash, glass, liquid, jewels, lottery, explosive materials and other restricted items are not accepted for booking.  If booked without our knowledge, we will not take any responsibility.  This forum on perusal of the documents finds that the 1^st opposite party has the knowledge of glass items contained in the parcel.  Further Ex.B2 receipt contained the name M/s.Magnum Glass Works, dated 14.01.2016 and containing description of goods as bottle aspirator 3000 ml, two numbers. The 1^st opposite party filed a copy of invoice before this forum and the same marked as Ex.B3.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party has the knowledge that the box containing glass bottles and the opposite party very well knows about the content in the parcel.

10. The 1^st opposite party contended that the goods booked by the complainant seized by the commercial department for nonpayment of tax by the complainant or the consignee.  The agent of the 1^st opposite party paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards tax and the said amount payable by the consignee, but the consignee refused to pay the same and also freight charges of Rs.240/-and therefore the above goods were not delivered to the consignee by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant before filing this consumer complaint in this forum issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 25.03.2016.  Ex.A3 is the copy of legal notice and the same was received by the 2^nd opposite party on 30.03.2016 but the 1^st opposite party has not received the same.  The opposite parties failed to send any reply to the legal notice.  If really the 1^st opposite paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards sales tax then the 1^st opposite party has to sent a reply to the complainant immediately on receipt of the legal notice, but the 1^st opposite party failed to send any reply to the complainant. Further the 1^st opposite party has not sent any intimation letter either to the complainant or to the consignee at Kerala informing about the payment of sale tax department.  The 1^st opposite party filed copy of receipt issued by the department of commercial department, Palakkad dated 22.01.2016.  The receipt contains four items of goods including the complainant’s goods.  The department of commercial tax, Palakkad received a sum of Rs.29,000/- from one kishore  on 22.01.2016 but there is no proof that how much amount paid to the commercial tax department for the goods booked by the complainant.  Further there is no proof on what basis the 1^st opposite party had demanded Rs.5,000/- from the complainant or from the consignee.  Further the opposite party has not filed any documents to show that they demanded the sale tax amount from the consignee and the consignee refused to pay the sale tax amount.

11. The 1^st opposite party accepted that the goods were given by the  complainant to the opposite party and the same was delivered to the concerned consignee within stipulated time, but the 1^st opposite party failed to deliver the same and committed deficiency in service.  Further the and reason stated by the 1^st opposite party cannot be acceptable because the opposite party has not filed any documents to show that they demanded the sale tax from the consignee and the consignee refused to pay the sale tax amount.  Further the opposite party failed to send any reply to the legal notice issued by complainant and the above attitude of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in services.  Because of the deficiency in service committed by the 1^st opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.  The 1^st opposite party is the Branch Manager and the 2^nd opposite party is the head of 1^st opposite party are jointly and severally liable for the above deficiency in service.  Under these circumstances there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for compensation and costs from the opposite parties. Thus the points No. 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

12. Point No.3:-

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, this 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant.

The above said amount shall be payable by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which, this said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum of this 30^th August 2019.

Sd-                                                          Sd-                                                        Sd-

MEMBER-II                                         MEMBER-I                                         PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

  Sd-                                                         Sd-                                                                  Sd-

MEMBER-II                                     MEMBER-I                                                  PRESIDENT