BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL 2024
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 275/2017
M/s VRL Logistics Ltd Giriraj Annex, Circuit House Road, Hubballi Represented by its Managing Director. | …Appellant/s |
V/s
Dr.K.Saraswathi Aged about 63 years, W/o late Shri A.B.Varkady Residing at “Shreyas”Marappa Colony, opp. Govt. Junior College, Vokkapatna, Mangaluru-575003. | ….Respondent/s |
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party against the order dated 20.12.2016 passed in CC.No.168/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada which directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- within 30 days with interest @ of 8% from the date of complaint and submits that the complainant availed the service from this appellant by booking the consignment of Videocon Bazooka Television Model No.5412R with the Opposite Party to be delivered to her son Sri Rajneesh, HBR Layout, Bengaluru on 04.09.2012 where the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 800/-which is inclusive of Rs. 252/- towards freight charges and Rs.500/- towards door delivery charges but, the said consignment was not delivered to the addressee mentioned in the consignment for which this appellant offered for payment of Rs.2,520/- but, they did not sent the said. The complainant approached to the District Commission and sought for compensation. The District Commission after trial had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount.
2. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The District Commission has not considered the effect of Sec 10 of Carriage by Road Act, 2007 read with Rule 12 of Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 which, limits the liability of the common carrier. In fact whenever any consignment was not delivered or lost, this appellant is under the obligation to pay Rs. 2,940/- only but, the complainant was not accepted and the same amount considered by the District Commission. The District Commission without any valid reasons had directed to pay the above said amount. Apart from that the complainant himself has given undertaking that the consignment was old and used article and if the article being was lost or not delivered, this appellant is not liable to pay any damages at the time of booking the consignment, but the District Commission has not considered the above said undertaking of the complainant himself. They are not liable to pay any amount as awarded as, there is no any deficiency in service on their part hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard from both side.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted fact that the consignment was not delivered to the addressee. It is also in the knowledge of the appellant that the consignment was used…... It may be old or new, it is the boundant duty of the appellant to deliver to the door step of the addressee as undertaken. When it was lost, no information has given to the complainant hence, it is a clear case of a deficiency in service. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and allowed the complaint. No irregularities found in the order passed by the District Commission. At the same time no valid reasons urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly,
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member
ARD*
