The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Subhendu Chowdhury, S/O- Late Sukhendu Kumar Chowdhury, Malanchapalli, P.S.English Bazar, P.O. Mokdumpur, Dt:- Malda (W.B.), PIN – 732 103. u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 39/2017.

          The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as evidence is that the complainant on 24/06/2017 sent food supplement from the office of Goodluck Commercial Service. At the time of booking the complainant stated to the O.Ps that the package / consignment contain food products worth of Rs. 10,224/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only). For booking such articles the O.P. asked the complainant to pay Rs. 320/- (Rupees Three Hundred Twenty Only) and the complainant paid Rs. 320/- (Rupees Three Hundred Twenty Only) on 24/06/2017 as courier charges.  At the time of booking the O.P assured the complainant that the packet will be delivered within two days from the date of booking to the consignee at Durgapur City Centre. The complainant out of good faith believed the statement of O.Ps but the said consignment did not reach Durgapur even after lapse of two days from the date of booking of the consignment for which the complainant rang up to the O.P. two or three times. The O.P. told the complainant that the consignment was broken for which the O.Ps were unable to deliver the said consignment. The complainant sent a letter to the Malda office of the O.P. on 28/06/2017 but the said letter was returned back with a postal peon remark “Refused”. The complainant approached the O.P. and requested them to return the consignment and pay the price of the product and nothing was done by the O.Ps. It is to be mentioned that at the time of booking the O.Ps three or four times checked the consignment and on being satisfied with the package the O.Ps accepted the said consignment, received the money but failed to deliver the said consignment to the consignee. The complainant has prayed for return of price of the product of Rs. 10,224/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only) and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation for mental pain and agony and cost of litigation.  

          The petition has been contested by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.

          The definite defense case is that the complainant is guided by the terms and conditions of Good Luck Commercial Service.  The further defense case is that at the time of booking the complainant stated to the O.Ps that the packets contains the house hold articles and in presence of the complainant the shippers copy was prepared as per instruction of the complainant, actually 8 number of bottles were booked out of which two bottles were in damaged condition.

          The further defense case is that the complainant is an educated person and after knowing the terms and condition he availed the service of Good Luck Commercial Service. No unfair trade practice was done by the O.Ps upon the complainant. So concerning the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

          In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as P.W.-1 and no other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand no other witness was examined on behalf of O.P.

          During trial the complainant has proved and marked the documents from Ext.-1 to Ext.-2B as per exhibit list.

                                    ::DECISION WITH REASONS:

          There is no dispute that the complainant booked an article containing a packet at the Malda Office of Good Luck Commercial Service. The O.P. argued that at the time of booking the articles the complainant did not disclose that it was a food supplements and 8 nos of bottles were packed in the packet. According to the argument as advanced by the O.P. is that unless and until such fact is disclosed how the O.P. will understand that the food supplements in bottle are booked. So it was the liability of the complainant.

          He further argued that as per terms and conditions the complainant should state such fact and according to his argument such articles are not carried by the courier service. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submits that at the time of booking the office of O.P. at Malda on being satisfied accepted the articles. So it is there liability  

          On perusal of the receipt it is found that the terms and conditions has been mentioned in which it is found that consignment should not contain any goods which are prohibited or contraband to carry by law on the contrary the consignment will be held responsible for any untoward incident but no copy of terms and conditions has been filed by the O.P. to show that supplement food products are prohibited articles. The O.P. further argued that the consignments are sent entirely at the owner’s risk and the companies are not responsible for any loss or any risk whatsoever if risk charges are not paid to the consignment note. But on perusal of the receipt it is found that for shipping the articles Rs. 300/-(Rupees Three Hundred Only) was charged and Rs. 20/- (Rupees Twenty Only) was for risk charges. So as per terms and conditions risk charges were paid.  So the O.Ps are liable to pay. Now the point comes to the question what was the value of such articles which was sent by the consignment. On perusal of Ext.-2 it is found that total value of the articles was Rs. 10,224/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only) But from the cross-examination of P.W.-1 no where it is found that the O.P. is denied the Ext.-1. There is no cross-examination nor even any suggestion was put to the complainant that the value of those articles was not Rs.10,224/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only). Though the complainant should have produced the documents as to the valuation of those articles but as and when we found that there is no denial of the Ext.-2 as regards to the valuation of the articles which were sent through the courier. So in such circumstances this Forum has no other alternative but to hold that the total valuation of the articles where were sent by the courier will be Rs. 10,224/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only). So on considering the facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled to get return of the price of the articles which were sent by courier to the tune of Rs. 10,224/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only). So considering the facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled to get return of the price of the articles which were sent by courier to the tune of Rs. 10,224/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only). But the complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 320/-(Rupees Three Hundred Twenty Only) which was paid for carrying the articles. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for mental pain and agony and Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) for litigation cost.   

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

          the case be and the same is allowed  on contest with  cost.

          The complainant gets Rs.10,224/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four Only) for return of the price of the articles which were booked to the office of O.P. at Malda for sending the same to the Durgapur City Centre. The complainant also gets Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) for mental pain and agony and Rs. 500/-(Rupees Five Hundred Only) for litigation cost.

          The O.Ps are directed to pay the amount within 45 days failing which it will carry interest @ 5 % p.a. from the date of final order i.e. today 10.12.2019

          Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.