Date of filing: 18.05.2017 Date of disposal: 14.01.2019
Complainant: Sri Ajit Kumar Ghosh, S/o- Late Bhaktipada Ghosh, 22/05 Tansen Road, ‘B’ Zone, Durgapur, P.S. Durgapur, Dist.-Paschim Burdwan, Pin-713205
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd., Office Address-G.T. Road, NH-2 Durgapur, near Enfield Showroom, Bhiringi, P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Paschim Burdwan, Pin-713213.
2. The Proprietor, Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, NH-2, Durgapur, near Enfield Showroom, Bhiringi, P.S.- Durgapur, Dist. Paschim Burdwan, Pin -713213.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2: Ld. Advocate, Heramba Narayan Datta & Bisweswar Ghosh.
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 alleging false trade and deficiency in service and directing an award of Rs.60,000=00towards the cost of the commodity scheduled in the case, an award of Rs.1,00,000=00 as compensation towards mental pain and agony and an award of Rs.15,000=00 as litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that he purchased a divan made of wood from K.P. Furniture at Durgapur on 05.12.2016 for his son Mr. Pradip Ghosh. The total value of the divan paid was Rs.60, 000=00. After that the complainant intended to send it to his son at Pune through the O.P’s service. The O.Ps, after their investigation, said that it weighted 182Kg and it5 would be delivered within 25.01.2017 to its destination. They also issued a money receipt amounting of Rs.5, 168=00 on 17.01.2017 and it was paid by the complainant. The divan was delivered on 23.01.2017. At the time of taking delivery, the complainant’s son noticed that most of the parts of the divan had been damaged and some other portions have already been got cracked due to transportation and he found it not in the position to reset or to use. The son of the complainant also took some photos to highlight the actual damage before the O.Ps. After getting informed of all these, the complainant went to the office of the O.Ps and informing them all the facts claimed the refund of Rs.60, 000=00 as the amount of the divan. Acknowledging the fact that the said damage happened due to bad transportation, the O.Ps assured the complainant verbally that they would make arrangement of compensation for such damage. But even after making several requests they did not fulfill their assurance at all till date. Being dissatisfied with the O.ps service, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, City Centre, Durgapur, on 06.03.2017 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. After receiving the said complaint the said Assistant Director sent a notice each to the complainant and the O.Ps requesting to attend their office. But no response came on the O.Ps’ part.
The O.Ps. have filed their written version in regard with the complainant. They claimed the complaint as a false one. The arguments of the O.Ps showed the following points-
- They stated that the consignment is booked by the shipper’s risk, which indicates that if any damage is happening during the period of delivery, the liability is shifted on consignor and not on the defended company.
- They stated that having no insurance of the goods packed, the consignor can’t take the risk on his own.
- They also stated that the value of the goods was declared and duly signed by the consignor as Rs.25, 000=00. So, he can’t claim the total value as Rs.60, 000=00.
- They also stated that the company received the goods from the consignor packed and intact condition. Company is unaware what type of goods was to be delivered. The complainant himself packed and did not disclose what type of goods was to be delivered.
-: Decision with reasons :-
Undisputedly, the complainant has been proved a consumer of the O.Ps. The present complaint has many faults both on the part of the complainant and the O.P. The complainant claimed Rs.60, 000=00 as the cost of the divan, but in the receipt of the O.Ps’, the complainant had stated and signed the value of the article as 25,000=00. So, both of the actions of the complainant are contradictory. Though he has submitted the Xerox copy of the bill delivered from K.P. Furniture where the value of the article is stated as Rs.60, 000=00, then why did he signed on the receipt of the O.Ps where the value was claimed as Rs.25, 000=00. The main statements of the O.Ps, as mentioned here as points a, b, c & d have no written proof except for point no. C. They neither checked the article before taking the responsibility of the delivery nor made the consignor signed though the facts raised by them in their W.V. They also stated that can’t refund the whole amount but the cost of repairing. Then why did they not discuss this with the consignor?
The complainant has filed some photocopy of photographs of the said Divan as Annexure ‘C’ series, but the said photographs are not very clear to us to ascertain how much and what type of damage has occurred in the said Divan. Moreover, the complainant has claimed Rs. 60,000=00 as cost of the said Divan, which is the actual cost of the said Divan purchased by the complainant as per Annexure ‘’ A”. But the Annexure “B” filed by the complainant shows that the declared value of the goods i.e. the Divan which was send by the complainant through the Ops is Rs. 25,000=00. So, this Forum is not in a position to ascertain, what is the actual price of the said Divan, purchased by the complainant. As the complainant has failed to prove his case by filing cogent documents how much damage has been occurred, this Forum cannot come to a conclusive conclusion.
Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his complaint regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 75/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
