( Passed on dated 22^nd   April, 2016 )

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

               The complainant is a agriculturist and proprietor of M/s. Rajaram Agro Farms and C. B. Export having office at Ganesh Nagar, Gondia.  The complainant used to take Horticultural produce i.e. Mangos, other fruits and pulp concentrate etc. there from.  The complainant used to take production of Mangoes of Rs.10, 00,000/- to 15, 00,000/- per year. 

2.            The complainant is running business of selling mangoes and gwava not only in India but abroad also and he having good reputation in the Internal & International Market.

3.            Mohd. Irfan, Puchase Manager, United National Dairy Co. Ahsa, Saudi Arabia who is most reputed Co. in the international market which manufacturing the fruit Juice has called the mangoes and gwava pulps from the complainant firm so as to book the order of 20-20 tones of each fruit.  The international company called sample from complainant and future big order was depend upon the sample.  So the complainant has packed the said sample in one parcel enclosed with necessary documents for shopping one certificate of Analysis and material safety data sheet and on 29/09/2014 sends the said parcel through registered post to the United National Dairy Co., Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.  In this regard, the opponent No.1 issued receipt to that effect vide receipt No. A CM551931517.  For sending the said parcel through the registered post, the opponent No. 1 had charged Rs.1221/- to the complainant which he paid it to the opponent No.1.

4.            The Saudi Arabia Company did not receive the parcel of pulp of Totapuri Mango and white Gwava to him, so on 07/10/2014, the complainant had filed the written complaint with the opponent No. 1 asking him whether the said parcel has delivered or not to the Saudi Arabia but the opponent No.1 did not convey any answer to the complainant.

5.            Looking to the urgency and seasonable business, further on 17/11/2014, the complainant has prepared another sample of pulp of Totapuri mango and white Gwava and send by speed post to the United National Dairy Co., Ahsa, Saudi Arabia, the opponent No.1 issued receipt to that effect vide receipt No. EM269618218 IN.  The opponent No.1 has charged Rs.2246/- to the complainant as service charges which he paid it to the opponent No.1.

6.            Even after lapse of the considerable period, the said parcel which was sent by the speed post did not deliver to the Saudi Arabia, therefore, on 26/11/2014, the complainant had made written complaint to the opponent No.2 and requested to refund the material cost and postal charges.  On the said complaint, in the month of middle of December, 2014 the opponent No.1 take action and returned the said speed post parcel to the complainant with endorsement that “Following EMS articles are booked containing other than documents for the destination where only documents service is available.  Hence return to booking office.”  It amounts to be a deficiency in service on the part of opponent because at the time of booking the said parcel, the opponent No.1 did not narrated the said condition to the complainant and recover parcel sending charges from the complainant.

7.            Due to loss of sample which was booked dated 29/09/2014 and non-delivery of sample which was booked dated 17/11/2014 to the Saudi Arabia, the complainant had deprived from collecting order from the above said international company.  If the complainant would have got order from United National Dairy Co. Ahsa, Saudi Arebia, then, the complainant would have earned pure profit near about of  Rs.3, 00,000/- per sea shipment.  As such, due to negligent and willful act of default of the opponents, the above said two parcels could not delivered to the destination and therefore, the complainant has sustained loss in his business.

8.            The complainant prayed to declare that the opponents have indulged in the deficiency in service and also prayed that to direct the opponents to pay Rs.4,13,467/- to the complainant along with 18% interest.

9.            The complaint is registered and issued notice to O. Ps.  After receiving notices O. P. 1 & 2 appeared before the Forum through their counsel and filed their written statement.

10.                   In the written statement O. P. No. 1 & 2 submitted that except booking and sending of parcel through Regd. post and charging of Rs.1221/- rest of the contents are specifically denied.  It is stated that registered parcel no. CM551931517IN was forwarded to delivery post office on 19/10/2014.  Delivery attempt was unsuccessful due to reason – “Addressee has PO Box” and the addressee was advised to pick up the item.

11.                   The O. P. No. 1 & 2 further submitted that the speed post facility for delivery in Saudi Arabia can only be availed for documents and not for merchandise.  Therefore the article No. EM 269618218 IN was returned from International speed post centre, Mumbai with the remark “article is booked containing other than document for the destination where only documents service is available. Hence return to booking office”.  The complaint is also not tenable for non joinder of necessary parties.  First parcel booked on 29/09/2014 was sent to Saudi Arabia, but delivery attempt was unsuccessful due to “Addressee has P. O. Box” and the addressee did not collect the article as such it is specifically denied by opposite party that there is any cause of action arose to file this case.

12.                   The complainant filed 12 documents as per list of documents.

13.                   The counsel for complainant Mr. S. B. Dahare argued that, the complainant is agriculturist and having export license.  The complainant had sent two mango pulp sample of 5 K.G. on 29/09/2014 and another on 17/11/2014 to United National Dairy Co., Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.  But after repeated requests and legal notice the sample were not delivered therefore the complainant has suffered business loss of Rs.4,13,467/- and the first sample sent on 29/09/2014 was not redeliver to complainant therefore it amounts to negligency of service hence complaint may be allowed as prayed.

14.                   The counsel for O. P. No. 1 & 2  Mr. K. R. Khandelwal argued that, speed post delivery in Saudi Arabia can only be available for the documents only and not for merchandise.  Therefore the article delivered on 17/11/2014 was returned from International speed post Centre, Mumbai.  The another parcel dated 29/09/2014 was not delivered to addressee P. O. Box and addressee did not collect the article hence there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. and complaint ought to be dismissed with cost.

15.                   After hearing and going through the complaint and reply the following points came to be consideration.

REASONING & FINDINGS

16.                    The complainant had sent two parcel of Mango pulp to Mohd. Irfan, United National Dairy Co., Ahsa, Saudi Arabia on  29/09/2014 by speed post parcel No. CM551931517IN and another speed post parcel on 17/11/2014 parcel no. EM 269618218IN the receipt issued by O. P. for two parcels admitted by O.P. for delivery to Saudi Arabia.  Therefore, the complainant had sent two parcels through O.P. for delivery to Saudi Arabia is proved.

17.                   The O. P. has filed receipt of parcel no. EM 269618218IN dated 17/11/2014 was redelivered  to Gondia post by international post on 19/11/2014 with endorsement that only parcel containing documents are delivered as per documents filed by the O.P. on page No. 50 and the O.P. has again redelivered  the parcel booked from complainant on 17/11/2014.  As per delivery report filed with copy of certificate of Post Master, Gondia at page No. 44 for receipt of sample back.  Hence, there is no dispute in receipt of 2^nd parcel book on dated 17/11/2014.

18.                   The first parcel which was booked on 29/09/2014 vide parcel No. CM551931517IN to Saudi Arabia was delivered at addressee P. O. Box at Saudi Arabia but addressee did not collect the article as per letter filed on page no. 54 by O. P..  To call back the article lying at P. O. Box at Saudi Arabia the address has to pay return charges.  The charges for return of parcel were not paid by the complainant.  Therefore the complainant could not get back the first parcel which was booked on 29/09/2014. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of O. P. in respect of service rendered by O. P. in respect of parcels of complainant.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as per following order:-

-: ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is dismissed.

2.            No order as to costs.