DATE OF FILING : 06-03-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 04-04-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24-06-2013.
Chandana Mukherjee,
Dakshinpara Duillya ( CT ), Sankrail,
Howrah – 711 302.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. GATI Courier Service ( KWE ),
Delhi Central Depo,
3/12, Asaf Ali Road, near Delight Cinema,
Delhi – 110006.
2. GATI Courier Service ( KWE ),
9, Howrah Stadium, Dobson Road,
Howrah – 711101. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. It is the case of an aspiring to be professional painter / artist, namely Ms.
Chandana Mukherjee who sent one of her water colour paintings to All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society, New Delhi, for a painting exhibition on 29-12-2012 by way of hiring service of O.Ps. The painting was sent in a rolled form in a plastic pipe-like case whose mass was of 1 kg. and O.Ps. took Rs. 350/- as the service charge from her vide Annexure dated 29-12-2012 being docket no. 496353109. But, surprisingly when the same painting was sent back by the All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society in the same fashion, in the same rolled hollow pipe-like case through the O.Ps. on 15-02-2013, on the contract, of F.O.D. i.e. freight on delivery, the complainant had to pay a higher rate of Rs. 1,875/- vide xerox copy of Annexure dated 15-02-2013 where the weight of the painting has been shown as 3 kg. This is also a point of disagreement. Complainant called the O.Ps. both at their Kolkata office and Delhi Depo, for several times asking for the reasons of charging such a higher price. But their replies could not satisfy her. Furthermore, when the deliveryman of O.Ps. came to handover the painting to her, he told her that her residential address is not at all easy to find out as if that address falls out of the territory of this Nation which made her very very insulted and unhappy. However, she asked for the return of her extra amount of Rs. 1,525/- i.e., ( Rs. 1,875 – Rs. 350/-) which she paid at the time of taking delivery of her painting but O.Ps. refused to do that. Hence this case, whereby alleging unfair trade practice adopted by O.Ps., complainant has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost along with return of R s. 1,525/-.
2. Notices were served upon O.Ps. They appeared and filed written version.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. .In the written version,
denying and disputing all allegations, O.Ps. have taken a specific plea that complainant chose ‘Gati Lite’ service while sending the painting to Delhi which costs low i.e., Rs. 350/-, and while sending the same painting from Delhi, All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society opted for the service of ‘Gati premium’ which is based on ‘FOD’ system i.e., freight on delivery, means at the time of delivery, consignee has to pay the freight charge and so it is charged with Rs. 1,875/- as ‘Gati Premium’ costs higher. But on going through both the annexures dated 29-12-2012 and 15-02-2013 issued by O.Ps. nowhere in the four corners of the annexures, we find the two separate names as ‘Gati Lite’ and ‘Gati Premium’. Moreover, it is a common man’s prudence that if charge is taken at a higher rate, the service should be a more prompt one. But while sending from Kolkata, the painting was booked on 29-12-2012 and it was delivered at the destination on 31-12-2012. In the same way, while booking from Delhi on 15-02-2013, the same painting was delivered to complainant’s residence on 18-02-2013. Moreover, how a rolled painting of 1 kg. can be turned to be of 3 kgs., it is also beyond our common knowledge because it was sent and returned in the same case. Since, it was returned on the basis of ‘FOD’ i.e., freight on delivery, O.Ps took this advantage that painting would be collected by the complainant at any cost. This is nothing but an unfair trade practice that O.Ps. adopted with all malafide intention which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. O.Ps. are running a business which is totally based on consumer satisfaction which they should always give top priority. Here, they were absolutely negligent about their duties Our Apex Court in different judgments has held that while deciding the amount of compensation, the attitude of the o.ps. should also be taken into consideration. O.Ps. have no right to malign the residential status of the complainant. They are properly paid to deliver the article which the agent of O.Ps. should have done without uttering any irritating words.
Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with cost against O.Ps.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 65 of 2013 ( HDF 65 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to return the amount of Rs. 1,525/- to the complainant. The complainant do get an award of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.
That the O.Ps. are directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 5,525/- to the complainant within one month from this order, i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) (T.K. Bhattacharya )
Member, Member, President,
C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah
