CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 23/2005CC
Jijesh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
G M,KRS Pvt Ltd area Manager,KRS Ltd
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
ORDER By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The gist of the complaint is as follows: The Complainant is the Consignee of the article sent by his father. On 05.07.2004 the consignment of different commodities including Sary, Pants, Shirts, Blankets, Churithar, Sweets and Toys weighing 19 kg was sent to the Complainant through transporting agent called Magi Cargo, Chennai. The Consignment was then transferred the Opposite Party No.1 as per the way bill No.5762106 reference No. T.604. The consignment was received by the Opposite Party No.1 and it is to be delivered to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2 (Contd......2) -2- having the office at Pulpally. Even after several days the consignment was not delivered to the Complainant, on enquiry it was informed the Complainant that the parcel will be delivering to the Complainant after one month. The Complainant's father came home from Gulf on leave and notice was sent to the Opposite Party No.1 on 03.09.2004 and it was then only the Opposite Party No.1 telephoned the Complainant that the parcel is lost. There was the assurance from the Opposite Party No.1 that the loss would be compensated. How ever in the absence of the compensation the complaint is resulted. The initial Consignor Magi Cargo Private Ltd has delivered the parcel to the Opposite Party No.1 and it was also received by them. The parcel contains costly cloth items it is absolutely irresponsible and illegal on the part of the Opposite Party. The consignment weighed 19 kg of value Rs.41,000/- it consists of 4 Saries of value of Rs.16,000/-, 4 Shirts cost of Rs.6,000/-, 4 Pants cost Rs. 8,000/-, 2 Blankets of value Rs.8,000/-, Toys and Sweets having worth of Rs.3,000/-. Apart from the material loss of the items the Complainant has excessive mental pain and agony. The Opposite Parties may be directed to give the Complainant Rs.41,000/- towards loss of the parcel along with and interest of 12%. The Complaint is also to be compensated with Rs. 10,000/- towards the mental pain. The Opposite Parties filed version on their appearance it is contended that the complaint itself is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Items specified in the complaint is not admitted more over no documents in that respect is produced by the Complainant. Further the value of the items are not shown in the invoice. The Complainant is not entitled for any compensation which itself is an exorbitant sum. In the parcel bill no amount is shown with the respect to the consignment. No risk charge or any other charge is paid to the Complainant. It is implied from that the consignment does not consists of valuable (Contd.......3) -3- articles. The parcel is not insured there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. Points in consideration are: 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?. 2.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant's mother is the Power of Attorney Holder who is appointed by the Complainant according to Ext.A3 to appear in behalf of him. The territorial jurisdiction aspect is in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant's mother is examined as PW1. The parcel was sent in the address of the Complainant by his father. Ext.A1 is the letter sent to the Complainant dated 19.07.2004 and the letter sent to the Complainant by Magi Cargo. References in which shows that the consignment is entrusted to the Opposite Parties and way bill No.5762106. Ext.A2 is the way bill which shows that the consignment is delivered to the Opposite Parties on 19.07.2004 from the MDS Broadway to Pulpally. The freight charges levied is Rs.200/- and weight of the Commodities 19 kg. The value of the items are not mentioned in the Consignee copy. It is evidently proved by the documents that the consignment is handed over by the Magi Cargo Private Ltd., to the Opposite Party for the delivery at Pulpally. The freight charges was also specified in the Consignee copy. But the delivery is not effected as scheduled to be done by the Opposite Party. The non delivery of the consignment to the consignee is absolutely a deficiency of service. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant. (Contd.....4) 4- Point No.2: Ext.A2 is the document which has the specification of the value but not stated how which is the value of the consignment. There is no documentary evidence with respect to the items belonged to the consignment. The PW1 though deposed the different items in the parcel cost Rs.41,000/- . It cannot be taken in to face value in the absence of any document in support of it. It is just and reasonable that the non delivery of the parcel is to be compensated to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are to give the Complainant Rs.1,000/- as compensation for the lost articles and cost of Rs.2,000/-. In the result, it is held that the Complainant is entitled to be paid by the Opposite Parties Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards the compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant can execute this order as per the provisions of law. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 12th day of February 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1. Jalaja House wife. (Contd.....5) - 5 - Witnesses of Opposite Parties: OPW1. Thambi. Business. Exhibits for Complainant: A1. Letter. dt:20.07.2004. A2. Way bill. dt:19.07.2004. A3. Power of Attorney. dt:27.08.2005. Exhibits for Opposite Parties: Nil. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
