DATE OF FILING                    :     24/02/2014

DATE OF S/R                            :      24/03/2014

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30/10/2014

SUBHADIP BOSE

Son of late Tapan kumar Bose,

Residing at 35/1, Danesh Seikh Lane

P.O. B. Garden, P.S. Shibpur

Dist - Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

D.T.D.C. Yoga Jog Centre,

Having its office at 12,

B.G. Road, P.S. Shibpur

Dist – Howrah 711 103 -------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The complainant namely Subhadip Bose   by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing severe mental agony including Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs to him due to non delivery of dispatch the birth day gift item of kid’s were at the destination situated at Pakhran Road  no. 1, Thane – 400606.  

2.               The brief facts of the case is that the complainant sent birth day gift like Kid’s wear by way of availing of service of o.p. by paying the required service charges being consignment no.  K67839834 on 23-12-2013 to be delivered at the destination place on or before 27-12-2013. The o.p. failed to deliver concerned gift goods to the consignee at his permanent address. On the contrary, return the consignment torn condition to the consignor with a remark that “shipment returned due to receives shifted ‘ which is causing severe mental physical as well as finance loss to the complainant. So finding no other alternative and being highly aggrieved complainant has filed the instant petition alleging deficiency in service against the o.ps. with the aforesaid prayers. Hence the complaint.   

3.               Notice was served. o.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly the case was heard on contest.  

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. O.p. in its written version has admitted that one consignment being no. K67839834 dated 23-12-2013 was booked by the complainant for deliver the same at the complainant’s destination place on or before 27-12-2013 at Pakhran  Road no. 1,  thane, PIN – 400606, considering the goods in question was a birth day gift and upon booking the said consignment , the complainant was in hop e that it will reach in due time i.e. on or before the birth day anniversary. The complainant repeatedly contacted over phone with the o.ps. against fate of delivery of goods but on the contrary the o.p. assured the complainant that it ( goods) will reach at the destination very soon and finally returned the consignment in a tone condition to the consignor with a remark “Shipment returned due to receiver shifted”. The o.p. in his plea that the booked goods could not deliver as the consignee shifted its address which is not at all true and not at all tenable because he accepted the consignment from the complainant after receiving the service charges on 23-12-2014 did not take any initiative towards that end Mere returning the goods with specific remark cannot protect the o.p. aginst his negligence in providing service to the complainant.  so all acts of o.p. is vicariously liable. O.p. should have kept in mind that he is running a business which is totally based on consumer satisfaction but he ( o.p.) has totally neglected to discharge his duty towards the complainant. he has taken the entire matter very casually which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Accordingly, we hold our candid opinion that the o.p. to be deficient  in providing service toward the complainant in a negligent manner.   

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  96 of 2014 ( HDF 96 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.p.

      The O.P. is hereby  directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and  Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs. 

      The O.P.  is  further directed to pay the  entire amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant within 30 days  from this order i.d. the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.    

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.      

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME. 

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.