BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 32 of 2015
Sri Sanjit Bhattacharjee, …………………………………………… Complainant.
- First Flight Courier Ltd,
Corporate & Registered Office: G-1001/02,10th Floor,
Lotus Corporate ParkOff Jay Coach Flyover, Western Express
Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063. Ph- 022-39576666. O.P No1.
- First Flight Courier Ltd,
N.S Avenue, Rangirkhari Point,
P.O & P.S- Silchar , District- Cachar, Assam
Ph-03842-261408. O.P No2.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Joydeep Biswas, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Debabrata Das, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 17-06-2016
Date of written argument……………… 08-09-2017
Date of oral argument………………….. 08-09-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 26-09-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- Sanjit Bhattacharjee brought this case under Consumer Protection Act 1986 against First Flight Courier Ltd. for award of compensation because expenditure statement of his four colleagues and for him was booked with O.P vide consignment No. N91300035213 on 12-10-2015 to send to Mr. Siddarth Mallik at New Delhi but the O.P did not deliver the document to the addressee. For which he suffer loss of Rs.1,30,000/-. However, he made correspondence but the O.Ps replied on 09-11-2015 that due to some technical reasons unable to deliver. The said document is not yet deliver. Hence he brought this case.
- Notice issue to O.Ps but they did not submit their representation (W/S). So the case is proceeding exparte against them vide order dated 11-04-2016.
- During hearing the complainant deposed on oath and exhibited report of consignment, vide Ext-1, reply of the O.P vide Ext-2. The complainant also submitted written argument of his learned advocate. We have also heard oral argument of the learned advocate of the complainant.
- In this case on perusal of record it is crystal clear that the complainant brought this case to make good of his financial loss of Rs.1,30,000/- because the expenditure statement of 4 (four) of his colleague and for him were not delivered by the O.P to Mr. Siddarth Mallik. Who is Mr. Siddarth Mallik and who are those four colleague not disclose by the complainant. The complainant also did not disclose the factual aspect clearly as what are the exact profession or service of his 4 (four) colleague and for him. It is also not clearly disclosed the expenditure statement for what matter. All those material are relevant to know by this District Forum to assess compensation. Moreover, from the complainant and evidence it is revealed that the complainant want to establish the fact that the document which was booked as consignment with O.P was a expenditure statement of his 4 (four) colleague and for him. Whether his (four) colleague also suffer financial loss for non-delivery of the said document to Mr. Siddarth Mallik. If 4 (four) colleague are suffering for financial loss for the said act of the O.P then in this case, the 4 (four) colleague should be made parties or at least a prior permission ought to be obtained from the Forum to bring this case on behalf of 4 (four) colleague along with the complainant. But the complainant did not seek permission prior to institution of this complaint.
- Anyhow, from Ext-1 and Ext-2 it is crystal clear that the document was not delivered till the date of filing of this case. The latest position of status of the consignment is not known to this Forum. The complainant also did not submit statement on oath of either of his 4(four) colleague or statement of Sri Siddrarth Mallik to know the status of the consignment at present or what was the exact extent of loss. The complainant deposed that he suffered irreparable loss due to non-delivery of document. How he suffer irreparable loss is not explained. Whether he was unable to reimburse of the expenditure incurred or the statement is for salary and other incidentals for his 4 (four) colleague and for his. Nothing could be guessed from the evidence on record. That is why, in this case adequate compensation cannot be assessed. If irreparable loss suffered by the complainant, the said loss cannot be compensated with monetary award.
- Nevertheless, in this case the O.Ps are absent without adducing evidence, for which the Ext-1 & Ext-2 are taken into considered to hold that the consignment was not delivered to the addressee by the O.P. So non-delivery of the consignment to the addressee is deficiency of service. Thus, the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation for deficiency of service. But in this case, in view of observation and finding we are rather inclined to assess a nominal compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only and cost of the proceeding of Rs.2,000/- only (Rupees two thousand).
- Therefore, awarded compensation accordingly of Rs.3,000/- and directed the O.Ps to pay proceeding cost of Rs.2,000/-. They are both severally and jointly liable to pay aforesaid total awarded compensation and cost within 45 days from the today. In default, interest @ 10% per annum to be charged on awarded amount.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on exparte. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 26th day of Sepember, 2017.
