Delhi

StateCommission

A/48/2016

V.P. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FEDEX & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jan 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  14.01.2019

Date of Decision :  17.01.2019

Appeal No. 48/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 19.09.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.346/12 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-II, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi.)

 

In the matter of:

 

Sh. V.P. Sharma,

12-B, Pocket, A-13, Kalkajee Exextn,

New Delhi-110019.                                                           …..........Appellant

 

Versus

1. M/s. FEDEX

C-152, Mayapuri Industrial Area,

New Delhi-110064.

 

2. M/s. Sameuelson

38-, Surya Appt.,

Kalkajee Extn.,

New Delhi-110019.

 

Present Addss:

 

884 A/1, Flat No.105,

Ward No.6, Mehrau;I,

New Delhi-110030.

 

3. Acerlogistics Pvt. Ltd.

A-72, Road No.2,

Mahilpalpur Extn.

New Delhi.   .....Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

 

Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                        Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

 

 

JUDGEMENT

Sh. O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

          The present appeal has been filed by complainant for enhancement of the amount awarded by District Forum in CC No.346/12 vide order dated 19.09.2015.  At the very outset, I may mention that complainant / appellant has changed the order in which respondents were arranged in the complaint before District Forum. Respondent-2 M/s. Sameuelson was OP-4 before the District Forum, Respondent-3 Acerlogistics Pvt. Ltd. was OP-2 before the District Forum, Respondent-4 International Courier Services was OP-3 before the District Forum. 

          The appellant filed the complaint stating that he handed over a carton of 50 PCs of Gunmental bushes to Mr. Mathew Kurien of OP-4 alongwith cash payment of Rs.11,400/- for services for door delivery of the cargo by air to the buyer of the complainant namely Aluworks Ltd. in Ghana.  OP-4 handed over cargo to OP-3 who in turn handed over the same to OP-2.  OP-2 handed over the cargo to OP-1 vide airway bill dated 15.02.2012.  As per letter dated 16.04.2012, OP-1 sent cargo to airport but said carton was never delivered to the buyer of the complainant in Ghana.  It was lost during OP-1’s  custody in warehouse in airport at Ghana.  Appellant submitted claim for US dollar 3000 on 05.06.2012 via internet.  The same was acknowledged by OP-2.  No response has been received.  The appellant sent notices on 23.07.2012 and 07.08.2012.  The complainant sought directions against OP-1 to reimburse the claim of US dollar 3000 with interest @ 18% per annum for the loss of material, loss of reputation, cost of harassment, agony, and loss of production at buyers end, cost of following up by both the buyers as well as shipper.

          District Forum issued notices to all the OPs. OP-1 to OP-3 failed to turn up despite service of notice and they were proceeded exparte on 04.04.2013.  OP-4 alone contested the complaint and filed reply. OP-4 pleaded that complainant and OP-3 were having direct dealings and OP-4 had nothing to do.  So OP-4 was not liable.  As per instruction of complainant, OP-4 handed over the cargo to OP-3 vide receipt dated 15.02.2012. OP-3 handed over the carton to OP-2 vide receipt dated 20.02.2012 who in turn gave cargo to OP-1 vide Airway Bill, it was for OP-1 to handle the cargo.

          Complainant filed his own evidence by affidavit.  OP-4 filed affidavit of Mathew Kurian, its proprietor.  Both parties filed written arguments.

          After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments, the District Forum found that OP-4, OP-3 and OP-2 acted as agent of OP-1 and just passed the articles in question to OP-1 for delivery at Ghana.  Thus, OP-1 alone should compensate the complainant on account of deficiency of service.  Accordingly, the OP-1 was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- including cost of reimbursement of the value of the articles in question and mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant.  OP-1 was also directed to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realisation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.  In case the cost was not paid within one month of receipt of copy of the order, OP-1 would be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of order till recovery of the amount.

          OP-2 to OP-4 were served by publication in Nav Bharat Times and Statesmen dated 04.04.2018 and 07.02.2018 respectively.  They failed to put in appearance and have proceeded exparte.

          The bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that District Forum has not assigned any reason why it has reduced the claim of the complainant from US 3000 dollar to Rs.25,000/- only.  But counsel for respondent-1 ably explained that value of articles disclosed in Airfreight invoice copy of which is at page-51 of the bunch of appeal was 250 US dollar.  The value of 250 US dollar comes to Rs.17,500/- at the current price of Rs.70/- per dollar.  District Forum has awarded Rs.20,000/- in place of Rs.17,500/-. The same is more than the amount disclosed by the complainant.

          Counsel for respondent-1 went on to argue that respondent-1 remitted the amount awarded by District Forum by cheque dated 16.06.2016 for Rs.27,252/- in favour of appellant to the appellant. However, the same was not accepted by the appellant and returned back to respondent-1. This shows the bonafide of respondent-1.

          On the other hand, appellant drew my attention towards the claim form copy of which is at page-5 of the bunch of appeal which shows the declared value as USD 2000. I am unable to appreciate argument. Claim form is self serving document of appellant.  Respondent-1 cannot be held bound by the same.

          The appellant should have protested when he noted cheque of value in airfreight invoice.  He did not do so.

          The appellant submitted that it is the case of forgery and cheating committed by OP-4 and OP-1 by joining hands.  He submits that he proposes to initiate criminal action against the OPs for aforesaid offences which he had been restraining himself from resorting to.

          Complainant / appellant may take such steps as are available to him in law.  Nothing prevented him from doing so.

          From the material on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of District Forum.  The appeal fails and dismissed.

          Copy of the order be sent to all the parties free of cost.

          One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)