Date of Filing: 10-03-2015 Date of Final Order: 13-07-2016
Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, (Member)
The gist of the complaint as culled out from the record is that Govt. of India, Ministry of Textile through its office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) Marketing & Service Extension Centre, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, 1st Lane, Hakim Para, Siliguri-734001, by No. MESC(SLG)/Dev-Gsb/2014-15/987 dated 19/01/2015 has been pleased to inform the Complainant, Dipak Dey that he has been selected to represent his crafts and to display the handicrafts by participating in Gandhi Shilp Bazar at Trivanderum (Trivandrum) in the state of Kerala. By getting such intimation from the office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) Marketing & Service Extension Centre, Siliguri, the Complainant with a view to participate in the said Gandhi Shilp Bazar and to take his stock for display cum sale has booked his commodities with Gati KWE at Cooch Behar Office i.e. the O.P. No.1 on 03/02/2015 having Docket No.402043785 to be delivered to the consignor at Putharikandom Maidanam, Trivanderum (Trivandrum), Kerala on 12/02/2015. That the said Gandhi Shilp Bazar there at Trivanderum (Trivandrum) was scheduled to be held from 09/02/2015 to 18/02/2015. The Complainant reached Trivanderum (Trivandrum) on 11/02/2015 at 7am since when he started searching for his consignment with expectation to display cum sale his commodities at the Gandhi Shilp Bazar and went on demanding since 12/02/15 the schedule date of delivery but unfortunately, the Complainant got the intimation over telephone from the O.P. No.1 about reaching of the articles there on 16/02/15 around 5.30pm with intended delivery, when the said Gandhi Shilp Bazar was at its fag end and the commodities would not serve the purpose of the Complainant so he could not take delivery of his consignment.
At the time of booking with the Gati Kwe Currier service on 03/02/2015 at Cooch Behar the Complainant was told that it would be delivered on 12/02/2015 and the consignor would be able to take delivery of the consignment on any day on 12/02/2015 but the consignment arrived on 16/02/15 and there has been lack of service on the part of the O.Ps.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant was suffered from mental pain & agony and financial loss also he has lost his reputation and good will for non-participating in the said Gandhi Shilp Bazar.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Rs.35,800/- the price of the commodities, (ii) Rs.11,787/- for articles booking charge, (iii) Rs.1,965/- as up and down train fare, (iv) Rs.18,000/- for lodging & Fooding, Rs.4,00,000/- for mental pain & agony, financial loss also for reputation and good will, along with interest and litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, Gati KWE, Cooch Behar and the O.P. No.2, Gati Kintesu Express Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad have contested the case by filing Written Version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.Ps that the Complainant hired the service of the O.Ps from Cooch Behar to Trivandrum but the O.P had no knowledge about the purpose of the consignment was not explained to the O.Ps at the time of booking. The O.P also stated in their W/V that if the consignment was so time sensitive, it should have been booked early and opting some fast service mode to avoid any transit exigencies. The consignment reached at its destination during the period of the said fair as has been stated by the Complainant in his complaint but he refused to accept, for the reasons best known to him. Hence, the Complainant cannot take advantages of his own misdeeds.
The O.Ps further contended in their W/V that the payment against booking was made by the Complainant which includes the tax and other charges etc. At the same time since the consignment was not used by the Complainant for which he requested for return to the booking destination and as a goodwill gesture by the O.Ps same instruction was followed and consignment was returned safely to the given address without any charge and the consignment was handed over by the complainant in packed condition and there was no instruction given by the opposite party. The Complainant never disclosed about the specific contents and its use and the time of its requirement like the date of Trade Fair etc.
It is the case of the O.Ps that the O.P. No.1 received the goods from the Complainant in a sealed packet condition. The O.P was neither aware about the specific contents inside the said parcel nor are about the purpose for which goods were being sent from one place to other place. The O.Ps also stated that the services provided were subject to the terms and conditions as written behind the Booking receipt/Docket/consignment not. Though there was no delay on the part of the O.Ps but if any, same was neither intentional nor deliberate but only due to the reason, which was beyond the control of the O.Ps for which the O.Ps shall not be made liable in any way. This delay caused was only due to the reason of disturbances in the route in between the source station and destination station. It is stated that consignment reached at destination during the time of the said fair i.e. within 18/02/2015.
It is the further case of the O.Ps that they always informed their customers about the status of the consignments. In this case also there was no exception of the same and same was made. In the present case the vehicle which was carrying the materials got struck in transit and the same was not under control of the O.Ps. The Complainant had taken risk of transit /in-mute which generally occurs, for which they should have dispatched the consignments keeping grace time in their hands or they should have dispatched it by Air, since they were are about their urgency and necessity, for which O.P was not aware. The O.Ps immediately after receiving the goods from the Complainant at Cooch Behar, dispatched the same for destination and after reaching the consignments at destination attempted for delivery but the Complainant instead of receiving the goods instructed for redirection to Cooch Behar, which was done free of cost, intact and safely.
On the other hand in docket/consignment note, there is an Arbitration Clause and so the Complainant could not have let the Arbitration Clause go by. As per clauses, if any dispute or differences arising from the docket/consignment note shall be referred to an arbitrator and this O.Ps shall be entitled to nominate a sole arbitrator to adjudicate any dispute, differences or claims and the complaint is hit by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps and the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the present O.Ps.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.1 & 2, prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully. Perused the entire documents in the record and also heard the argument as advanced by the parties at length. Perused and considered the evidence and affidavit filed by the parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the complainant booked his article with Gati KWE at Coochbehar on 03/02/2015 having Docket No.402043785.The OP issued Money receipt of Rs. 11,787/- for article booking charge.
Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.P so established from the record we have no hesitation but to hold that the Complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
The Branch Office of the O.Ps courier service is situated at Cooch Behar town and total valuation of this case is Rs.4,67552/- which is less than maximum limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No. 3 & 4.
In Annexure “F”, the Complainant field an acknowledgment certificate issued by the DIRECTORATE OF COTTAGE AND SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES proves the fact that Mr. Dipak Dey is the owner of Bhai Cane Furniture.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant booked his article with Gati KWE at Cooch Behar on 03/02/2015 having Docket No.402043785 with an assured delivery date of 12/02/2015. The articles reached at the destination on 16/02/2015. Annexure “C” & “D” submitted by the complainant proves that the O.Ps admitted the fact of delay in delivery of consignment and the O.Ps are wanted to send the material to any other location or send back the material to Cooch Behar on FOC basis (Free Of Cost). The O.Ps in W/V stated that he had no previous information about the purpose, which for the consignment was booked. It is understandable from the original Booking Slip Annexure “A” that The consignment was booked in an Express (SX) service which is the most ordinary service of the O.Ps, although the O.Ps have some other services like Express Plus (SP), Premium (AX) and Premium Plus (AP) services for early and time bound delivery of consignment but the complainant has not taken the said option. O.Ps in W/V stated that , If the consignment was so time sensitive then it should have been booked early or obtaining some fast service mode to avoid any transit exigencies. The Complainant had taken the risk of transit which generally occurs.
The Complainant in his W/V stated that on 19/01/2015 he received the invitation from Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) Marketing & Service Extension Centre, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, 1st Lane, Hakim Para, Siliguri-734001 for participate in Gandhi Shilpa Bazar (GSB) at Trivanderum. On 11/02/2015 he reached at Trivandrum in spite of knowing the date of Gandhi Shilpa Bazar GSB which was scheduled to be start on 09/02/2015 i.e. two days after the (GSB) was started. The Complainant booked his article with Gati KWE at Cooch Behar on 03/02/2015 having Docket No.402043785 with an assured delivery date of 12/02/2015 that is four days after the GSB was started.
In this juncture, we may highlight some part of news published in a leading news paper of that day…..
“The Handicrafts Development Corporation of Kerala is hosting the ‘Gandhi Shilp Bazaar 2015’ - an exhibition-cum-sale of handicrafts and handloom products organized by the Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Government of India at the E.K Nayanar Park in Putharikandam Maidan. M.C Kamaruddin, Chairman of Handicrafts Development Corporation of Kerala inaugurated the exhibition on Monday evening. Karimpuzha Raman, Managing Director, Handicrafts Development Corporation of Kerala, and P. Mallikarjunaiah, Regional Director of the Office of Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Government of India, was present on the occasion.
Handicrafts and handloom products from Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam and Tripura will be showcased at the exhibition. The event is being organized to provide a platform for artisans to sell their products directly to the public. It also helps the artisans to manufacture products in tune with the taste of the buyers.”
Thus, it can be easily assumed that in such “High profile mela/exhibition” there must have some strict rules and regulations for the participants about taking possession of his/her stall. The rules and regulations can be understood from the invitation letter which was received by the participant/complainant. The Complainant files so many documents in his evidence on affidavit and also at the time of argument but he did not produce the Invitation letter which he received from the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) office. In this case the Complainant who was a participant of this exhibition reached at the exhibition place on the 3rd day and that time he was confirmed that his booked handicrafts will reached at the exhibition place on the 4th day. So, it can be easily said that the complainant was disqualified to participate in the exhibition for his own fault.
If the O.Ps were able to deliver the consignment booked by the Complainant on 12/02/2015 in that case the Complainant was still unable to participate in the exhibition.
In the complaint petition the Complainant said that “This Complainant’s only means to maintain his livelihood and family” but the upper mention fact prove that the Complainant is very much negligent about his livelihood and the responsibility of his non-participation in the GSB cannot be shifted on the O.Ps.
In his complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and W/Ar. the complainant claims that due to O.Ps deficiency in service he was unable to participate in the exhibition. In Annexure “B” the Complainant filed a document issued by the OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFTS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, which certified the fact that the Complainant Mr. Dipak Dey participated in the GSB. If the document is true then it is very much clear that the Complainant wants to suppress some material fact which is essentially related with this case.
No doubt, we find deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for non delivery of the booked article on assured date. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case and pursued the entire document we did not find any scrap of paper that proves the loss suffered by the Complainant for delayed delivery of the article he booked for exhibition on GSB rather Annexure “B” proves that the Complainant successfully participated the said exhibition on GSB.
Thus, considering the facts and circumstances also relied on the documents made available in the record we are inclined to hold that the Complainant is entitled to get claim amount in part for the deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps but the Complainant is not entitled to get any other amount he claimed.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/24/2015 is allowed on contest but in part with litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay the Complainant Rs11,787/- towards cost of booking. The O.Ps are further directed to give back the material booked by the Complainant on 03/02/2015 having Docket No.402043785 from the place of booking. The ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant by the O.Ps within 45 days failure of which the O.Ps shall pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
