COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 17th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 221/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT M/s. Chanakya Industries,<br /> No. 558/549/1, <br /> Opp. Bank of Baroda,<br /> Magadi Main Road,<br /> Kamakshipalaya,<br /> Bangalore – 560 079.<br /> Represented by its <br /> Managing Partner<br /> G.K. Ananthaiah.<br /> <br /> Advocate (K. Ravi)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo Ltd.,<br /> No. 269, Lahari Towers,<br /> Albert Victor Road,<br /> 1st Main Chamarajpet,<br /> Bangalore – 560 018.<br /> Represented by its Supervisor<br /> C.S.S. R. Mohanraj.<br /> <br /> Advocate (P.K. Venkatesh Prasad)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.1,82,520/- and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant booked a consignment with OP on 04.04.2007 containing special tools of 18 in no. of worth Rs.1,82,520/- to be delivered to M/s. Fedreal Mogul Goetze India Limited, Patiala. OP collected the necessary service charges. Complainant expected the delivery of the said goods within a day or two. But to his utter shock and surprise the said goods were not delivered right up to 09.06.2007. When complainant enquired the OP about the non-delivery of the consignment OP came up with a defence that the said goods are misplaced in transit. For no fault of the complainant, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. His repeated requests and demands to compensate him, went in futile. Hence he felt the deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP there is no proof that complainant has entrusted the goods worth of Rs.1,82,520/-. As per the consignment note in case of delay in delivery or loss or misplace liability of the OP is only for Rs.100/-. There is no proof of deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The claim is highly exorbitant and baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP for the transportation of special tools of 18 in no. worth of Rs.1,82,520/-. OP accepted the said consignment on 04.04.2007 and promised to deliver the same within a day or two. Complainant to his utter shock and surprise got the information from the consignee that right up to 09.06.2007 the goods are not delivered. When complainant contacted the OP, OP came up with a defence that the said goods have been misplaced and their liability at the most if any is only Rs.100/-. Complainant has produced the consignment note. OP has collected Rs.1,380/- for the transportation of the said goods. The other documents produced by the complainant with regard to the loss/damage/short claim form belonging to the OP clearly discloses that the claim amount as Rs.1,82,520/- the value of the goods that is entrusted to OP. The details of the tools entrusted, cost of the same and letter correspondence made are produced.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. The complainant even got issued the legal notice on 18.10.2007 to OP, again there was no response. The copy of the legal notice is produced. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to shirk their responsibility. OP has contended as per the consignment note their liability if any with regard to loss, damage or misplacement of the goods during the transit is only Rs.100/-. For that consignment note complainant is not a party, there is no concluding contract as far as the liability of Rs.100/- is concerned between the complainant and the OP. Hence OP cannot take the undue advantage of certain imprint made in a small letter in the consignment letter. We do not find force in the said defence of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents produced by the complainant, the contents of which are not at all disputed by the OP leads us to draw an inference that complainant had entrusted the consignment consisting of 18 tools of worth Rs.1,82,520/- to OP. Right up to this day the said consignment is not delivered. Naturally complainant for no fault of his, must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. It is all because of the carelessness, negligence and hostile attitude of the OP. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves the cost of the consignment entrusted to OP with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.1,82,520/- towards the cost of the consignment entrusted to it and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which the complainant is entitled to claim an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs.1,82,520/- from 04.04.2007 till realization along with the litigation cost. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br /> <br />