Date of filing: | 14.07.2023 |
Date of disposal: | 18.08.2023 |
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 18.08.2023
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1357/2023
Mr. Saurabh Pathak, S/o. Manohar Pathak, Aged About 46 years, Residing at Alaya by Essem 18, Unit BoG01, Haralur Road, Eash Ambalipura, Bangalore-560102. (Advocate – Sri.Omran Khan) | …..Appellant/s. |
V/s |
1) Fedex Express Transportation And Supply Chain Services (I) Private Limited, 6th Floor, Unit Nos.601 to 606, West Wing at No.26/27, Raheja Towers, M.G.Road, Karnataka, Bangaloe-560001. 2) Fedex Express Transportation And Supply Chain Services, Regd Office: Boomerang, Unit No.801, Wings A & B1, 8th Floor, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072, India. | …..Respondent/s. |
ORDER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this Appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 challenging the impugned order dated: 01.06.2023 passed in C.C. No.140/2023 by the IV Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
02. The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.
03. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for Appellant on admission.
04. The District Commission while hearing on admission on 07.06.2023 had rejected the Consumer Complaint as not maintainable. Aggrieved by this order, complainant has filed this Appeal.
05. Perused the impugned order dated: 07.06.2023 and the grounds urged in the Appeal. The brief facts of the Appeal are that, the Appellant was sent a parcel containing financial documents which are very confidential in nature, from the consignor in the U.S.A country in the month of April 2023. As soon as the parcel reached India, the complainant tracked the same through online and found that, it was lying in the warehouse of the respondent for more than 05 days. Though opposite party in-spite of charging exorbitant amount from the complainant kept such parcel unattended leads to gross negligence. The complainant received consignment invoice through email from the opposite party to make payment of Rs.2,767/- and complainant replied that, opposite parties have overcharged and not described for what purpose they were charging. One person from opposite parties had visited the house of the complainant and asked bill amount, the complainant replied that, it invoice is appropriate he is ready to pay the same. For which the agent of opposite parties behaved rudely and demanded for payment and the said dispute went to the police station, Bellandur limits. The police had called the opposite parties to open the parcel and deliver it in the police station. The opposite party submits that, there is a charge of customers department, but the customer duty shows Rs.42/- for which the opposite party is charging Rs.1,591/- as per the invoice without giving any explanation. Thereafter the opposite parties have changed the invoice changes from Rs.2,767/- to Rs.1,591/- which clearly shows fraud and unfair trade practice. The complainant made several email correspondences and subsequently issued legal notice to the opposite parties, but all went in vain.
06. The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, the impugned order is contrary to law as the complainant falls under the definition of consumer under section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as per the decision reported in 1994 AIR SCW 2801::1994)2 EFR 449 between Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das wherein the consignee is the nominated agent by the consignor. The opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and restrictive practice which caused mental agony to the complainant as mentioned under sections 22(iii) and 23 respectively.
07. The Learned Counsel for complainant has argued that, though complainant comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act the District Commission had failed to consider the same while passing its impugned order dated: 07.06.2023 and hence sought for remand of the consumer complaint.
08. In view of the above submission made by the complainant, we are of the considered view that, the complainant being a consignee residing in India is an agent of the consignor residing in USA, definitely comes within the domain of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence proceed to allow the Appeal. Consequently remanded back the case to the District Commission to proceed further on merits of the case and needless to say affording an opportunity to both parties. The District Commission is directed to dispose-off the complaint as early as shortest possible time subject to parties assistance.
09. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
KNMP*
