cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of October 2012
Filed on : 16/03/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 165/2012
Between
Agnes Lorraine Camoens, : Complainant
House No. 10/1389, (By Adv. Roy Varghese,
Veluvil house, Olimolath house, Pancode P.O.,
Amaravathi, Kochi-01. Ernakulam, Pin-682 510)
And
Ismail Syed Mohamed, : Opposite party
S/o. Syed Mohammed Ali, (absent)
Thangaraparambu house,
Kuzhal Mandam P.O.,
Palakkad.
Now Working at :
Meghdoot Cargo LLC,
Willington Island, Kochi-2.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant is working as a tutor in an English Institute. The complainant availed service of the opposite party for carrying household articles from Sharjah to Goa. The opposite party assured the complainant that the articles would be carried overseas from Sharjah to Cochin Port. From there they would carry the articles by road transport to Goa after getting customs clearance. The opposite party received Dirham 4287 (Rs. 59,600) from the complainant on 02-04-2010 for the transit. The sea cargo has been transported from Sharjah and have reached the Cochin Port. However the opposite party did not attempt the customs clearance and the articles worth Rs. 1,60,000/- were detained at the ware house in Cochin Container Freight station at Willington Island by the Authorities. The complainant is entitled to get the amount collected by the opposite party refunded together with the price of the articles and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. This complaint hence.
2. The opposite party duly accepted the notice of this complaint issued from this Forum in spite of that the opposite party opted not to respond to the same. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on her side. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
3. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the transporting
charges refunded from the opposite party?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the price of the
goods together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-?
4. Points Nos. i&ii. Ext A1 receipt voucher goes to show that on 02-04-2010 the complainant entrusted house hold articles with the opposite party to transport the same from Sharjah to Cochin. The opposite party collected 4287 DH from the complainant which is equalant to Rs. 59,600/- as transportation cost. According to the complainant the opposite party failed to deliver the goods to the complainant in spite of issuance of Ext. A2 notice dated 05-07-2010. The opposite party is contractually liable to deliver the goods to the complainant in which the opposite party has failed thoroughly in spite of not having reply to or taken action on Ext. A2 and the notice issued from this Forum. The lackadaisical attitude adopted by the opposite party speaks for their responsibility in this matter squarely. The complainant has been put to irresponsible injury for which she has had to approach this Forum being without any other recourse to her predicament.
5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite party shall refund Rs. 59,600/- with 12%
interest from the date of complaint till realization.
ii. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,60,000/- to the
complainant being the cost of the consignment received by
the opposite party from the complainant at Sharjah.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of October 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Receipt voucher dt. 02-04-2010
A2 : Copy of lawyer notice
dt. 05-07-2010
A3 : Copy of postal receipt
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
