DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD Dated this the 13th day of October 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member Smt Banumathi.A.K, Member C.C.No.53/2009
Jayasree Jayaraj W/o. Jayaraj Proprietor M/s. Panjami Enterprise 10/195 K T Buildings Bye-Pass Road Shornur Palakkad – - Complainant (Adv. S.M. Unnikrishnan &Adv.K. Sivanarayanan) V/s
1. G. Naveenkumar M/s. Balaji Industries (Naveen Fans) 10-112/A, Vinayaka Nagar Balanagar Hyderabad
2. M/s. M.K.J & Co Hyderabad Rail and Road Transport & Clearing & Forwarding Agents, Parcel Office South Central Railways Hyderabad - Opposite parties
O R D E R Order by Smt. Seena.H, President
Case of the complainant in a nut shell
Complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Panjami Enterprise engaged in manufacturing and supply of electrical goods. Complainant depends on the income derived from this unit for livelihood. Complainant placed an order with the Ist opposite party for the supply of 13 boxes of ceiling fans. The total value of the goods was Rs.26,325/-. Out of the total amount, Rs.25,000/- was paid to Ist opposite party by way of Demand Draft. Ist Opposite - 2 - party after issuing a cash invoice memo to the complainant, sent the materials through the Rail and Road tranport clearing and forwarding agents for the Southern Railway who is the 2nd opposite party herein vide consignment note No.398 dated 09/05/2008. Complainant has to take delivery of the goods from Shoranur where the same has to be unloaded . The grievance of the complainant is that the said consignment was not unloaded at Shornur junction. Later after much correspondence with the 2nd opposite party, complainant came to understand that it was unloaded at Kochuvelli in Thiruvananthapuram and Sales tax authorities took the goods into their custody. When enquired with the Sales Tax authorities, it was informed that somebody took delivery of the goods. According to the complainant, the irresponsible and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties has resulted in huge loss and great mental agony to the complainant. Lawyer notice dated 4th September, 2008 was issued against both opposite parties. None of them replied. Complainant makes a claim for Rs.25,000/-, the amount already paid, together with interest and Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
Even though notice was served opposite parties never appeard before the Forum. Hence was set exparte.
Complainant filed affidavit. Exhibit A1 to A4 marked.
The question to be decided is Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Heard the matter. We have carefully gone thorugh all the relevant documents on record.
The case of the complainant is clearly proved by Exhibit A1 to A4 documents. It is clear from Exhibit A3 that the consignment was handed over by the Ist opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. It is the bouden duty of 2nd opposite party to ensure that goods are unloaded at the destination point. The terms and conditions printed on the backside of - 3 - Exhibit A3 reads as follows. “ Delivery should be taken within 5 hours from the time of arrival of train or destination. We are not responsible beyond 5 hours". The said term implies that the unloading of the consignment at the destination point is their duty and that goods will be in their safe custody for 5 hours from the time of arrival of the train.
In this particular case, we see that the 2nd opposite party is totally negligent in all aspects. 2nd opposite party has not even taken any positive steps to locate the consignment even though requested by the complainant by letter dated 22/05/2008. Even though notice was served, opposite parties never appeared before the forum. So no contra evidence is adduced to that one tendered by the complainant. The act of the 2nd opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service. Ist opposite party has handed over the goods to 2nd opposite party. Ist opposite party has not adduced any evidence denying the liability.
In view of the above discussions, we hold the view that both Ist and 2nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service. Complainant has already paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of Demand Draft to Ist Opposite party. This is evident from Exhibit A2. It is true that the non delivery of the consignment has resulted in loss and mental agony to the complainant which has to be compensated.
In the result, complaint allowed. 1st and 2nd opposite party is jointly and severally directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- together with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization. Pronounced in the open court on the 13th day of October 2009 PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
- 4 -
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Cash Invoice of Balaji Industries dated 09/05/08 for Rs.26,325/-
2. Ext. A2 - Copy of Demand Draft dated 05/05/2008 for Rs.25,000/- 3. Ext. A3 - Parcel Office Receipt of MKJ & Company dated 09/05/2008 4. Ext. A4 – Copy of Lawyer notice dated 04/09/23008 Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits Nil Cost (allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
Date of fair copy:11/11/2009 Date of despatch:
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
