JUDGEMENT
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted thatcomplainant appointed op no.2 to clear an imported consignment (Used Personal Effects and Household Goods) from Kidderpore Dock, Kolkata and to book the said consignment to Bangalore through a recognized transporter and the op estimated the total cost including its service charge as Rs. 50,377/- and requested the complainant to pay the said estimated cost in advance. Complainant duly paid the estimated cost of Rs. 50,377/- by a cheque to the op before start of the work and then left for Bangalore after authorizing his father, Shri Saroj Kumar Mukherjee to represent him during the entire process of clearing and forwarding of the consignment.
Op after clearing the consignment consisting of 19 cartoons (gross weight 431 Kg and gross volume 2.66 Cubic Meter) booked only 15 cartoons through DTDC for delivery to Bangalore. But op did not book the four cartoons on the ground that the same had glass wares along with other items though the op had full knowledge of the contents of all the 19 cartoons as the complainant had handed over to the op a detailed packing list required for Customs Clearance and the complainant had no other alternative but to take delivery of the 4 cartoons from the op at Kolkata for onward dispatch to Bangalore at a later date against additional expense.
After booking the consignment, the op submitted two Memo of Charges showing total expenditure of Rs. 48,683.36 paisa and refunded Rs.1,694/- to the complainant by a cheque. In spite of various requests by the complainant, the op could not submit supporting documents for Rs. 27,511.36 paisa which alleged to have been utilized buy them in making payment to various agencies on behalf of the complainant and those charges are covered in the Memo No. 1083/13 dated 30.01.2014 (A) and the amount has been calculated as – total amount Rs. 31,011.36 paisa less the agency commission of Rs. 3,500/- = Rs. 27,511.36 paisa.
It is specifically mentioned that op for the various expenses which they have shown in their Memo No. 1083/13 dated 30.01.2014 save and except for Rs. 3,500/- which covered their service charge/agency commission which was mutually agreed upon at the time of handing over the advance payment and for those expenses the op failed to submit the supporting documents and they should refund the said amount and the total claim of the principal amount is limited to Rs. 27,511.36 paisa which has been arrived at by deducting Rs. 3,500/- from the total amount of Rs. 31,011.36 paisa as appeared in the Memo No. 1083/13 dated 30.01.2014.
Fact remains that the complainant wrote a letter to the op on 24.03.2014 and op acknowledged the same on 26.03.2014 and op made a reply to the complainant on 27.03.2014 by a letter and for the above reasons and for negligence and deficient manner of service and for not refunding the balance amount, complainant has prayed for directing the op to submit all supporting documents for his all claims of Rs. 27,511.36 paisa and also gave direction to the op for which they cannot submit proper documents and also to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that op gave an estimate of Rs. 50,377/- as their professional charge for conducting the whole process and the complainant took the estimate and contacted the op after couple days and agreed to the said estimate of the op for carrying out the consignment. It is to be made clear that the said consignment included the whole process of clearing the goods from the Dock and then delivered the same to Bangalore and the total consignment consisted of 19 cartoons total weighing 431 Kg and out of 19 cartoons there were 4 cartoons which had glass or other breakable cartoons and some other have not accepted and for which op already paid Rs. 1,694/-.
Fact remains that complainantnever disputed the bill at the time of payment and not only that they never raised any objection or asked for any clarification at the time of payment and at the time of offering the contract the op was quite clear in their version regarding their professional charges regarding the job offered to them and complainant accepted the offer without any dispute. But all on a sudden with some ill motives complainant sent a letter to the op on 24.03.2014 almost two months after receipt of the said bill and asked for an explanation of the bill.
Further op has submitted that they never made false promises neither they tried to deceive the complainant by stating false and lucrative professional charges and they were pretty clear about their chargers and the complainant himself in his petition of complaint has admitted the same and during the consignment the op never demanded for an extra price from the complainant and neither they tried to squeeze money from the complainant by any manner because op is a reputed and has been carrying a clearing agency business for a long time and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the op and question of giving further details of the expenditure cannot be supplied by clearing agency and in the above circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
After hearing the complainant’s agent this is his father and also the Ld. Lawyer for the op and further considering the Express Clearing Agency, the Memo of charges vide Memo No. 1083/13 dated 30.01.2014, it is clear that op received Rs. 50,377/- as composite chargers for clearing the articles from Dock and to deliver the same to the destination of the complainant at Bangalore and fact remains 19 Cartoons were cleared from Dock and out of 19 cartoons, 4 cartoons were not returned back and for that purpose a sum of Rs. 1,694/- was returned to the complainant which is admitted.
In this case practically complainant main grievance is that he wants the other receipts which had been collected by the op at the time of transmission of the articles from Kolkata to Bangalore but that has not been supplied by the op which is the allegation of the complainant. In this context it is to be mentioned that clearing agency is not supposed to supply any other document except the Memo charges as the receipt in support of their assessing cost for such clearing of the articles from Dock and to deliver the same and fact remains that complainant agreed to pay that amount and ultimately paid and that is the vital contract in between the both parties and truth is that op Express Clearing Agency already on 30.01.2014 supplied two Memo charges receipts being Memo No. 1083/13 and 1084/13 and after consulting those receipts it is found that Rs. 27,600/- along with service tax Rs. 3,312/-, education charges Rs. 66/- and higher education cessRs. 36/- i.e. total of Rs. 50,377/- they issued receipt for that amount and balance was Rs. 31,011.36 paisa and in spite of that they also supplied another receipt in respect of Rs. 17,762/-. So, apparently op issued their Memo charges bill in respect of Rs. 48,613/- and in the said bill for what purpose they assessed the same that has been duly noted and truth is that Rs. 1,694/- has already been returned in respect of other and for which glass materials were not contracted and that was not transmitted to release from the Dock and for releasing port trust charges, custom charges and other entry charges and other charges were assessed. So, apparently both the receipts simply proved that op received Rs. 48,683/- as clearing charges because they are clearing agency and transporter. So, that bill is sufficient in view of the fact in respect of that bill service charges, education cess, higher education cess were charged and fact remains that as per Carried Contract Act, complainant has nothing to say in view of the fact that once any entered into agreement with any clearing agency, the person who hired the service of clearing agent must have to satisfy that he is willing to clear his articles and for transportation to his destination through that clearing agent. Because it is their business and when complainant accepted that offer and paid the same and when op has supplied it with receipt, then there is no question of handing over any other receipt by the op on the ground it is known to all that clearing agent is not bound to hand over other receipt only the memo charges for clearing the same for transporting charges, commission charges etc. and practically the consumer cannot claim any receipt in respect of their actual payment, their carriers etc. and it is beyond the rule of law.
So, considering that fact we are convinced to hold that complainant is misconceived and filed the complaint because complainant completely entrusted upon the op to do the needful for clearing those articles from the port and to deliver the same at Bangalore and in respect of that service he hired the service of the op and paid that amount.
But peculiar factor is that in the complaint there is no allegation about deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the op, then as per C.P. Act 1986 practically complainant has no grievance against the op regarding their services for which we are convinced to hold that about negligence and deficiency in service, there is no allegation against the op. No doubt we have realized that complainant has tried to convince that op must have to supply all supporting documents in respect of spending that amount. But such a plea is completely bad in law and in view of the fact complainant entrusted the entire work for clearing and for delivering of the same from port to Bangalore by the op and op charged such amount i.e. Rs. 50,377/- and complainant paid it and thereafter op did not deliver 4 cartoons for which a sum of Rs. 1,694/- has been refunded for non-delivery of the same to the destination.
But in respect of 15 cartoons he duly delivered the same after clearing. But truth is that in respect of other 4 cartoons all clearing charges and other charges were paid by the op to the port authority and how and what manner the same had been cleared and how much had been paid by the op and how much amount had to be paid by the op for delivery, transmission what is the cost all those questions cannot be raised by the complainant in the present complaint. In view of the fact that it is a clearing agency and complainant entrusted him everything and accepted consolidated charges and paid. So, under any circumstances, legally complainant is not entitled to claim any other receipt except the receipt issued by the clearing agency that is principal of law and that the clearing agency shall issue them receipt against their claimed amount of charges. Because op took all risk for clearing the same and to hand over the same without any harassment to the complainant and that has been duly served and regarding service of the complainant there is no allegation for which there is no merit in this complaint.
Accordingly the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op without any cost.
