Kerala

Idukki

CC/171/2020

Santhosh P K - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jolly - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 1.12.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 19^th  day of  September,   2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.171/2020

Between

Complainant                                            :   Santhosh P.K.,

                                                                    S3 ImpexSystems 21/735,

                                                                    Neelima Complex, Mangattukavala,

                                                                   Thodupuzha.  

       (By Adv: Muhammed Abbas M.I.)

And

Opposite Parties                                     :  1.  Jolly,

                                                                        Branch Manager, VRL Logistics Ltd.,

                                                                        Mount Sinai Road,

            Near Mount Sinai Hospital, Thodupuzha.

        2.  Anirudha Padnavis,

                                                                        Company Secretary &

                                                                                   Compliance Officer,

                                                                        VRL Logistics Ltd., Corporate Office,

                                                                        Giriraj Annex, Circuit House Road,

                                                                       Huballi, Karnataka.

 (By Adv:  N.K. Vinodkumar)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Case of complainant is briefly discussed here under :

 

          Opposite party No.2 is a Logistics Company represented by its Company Secretary and opposite party No.2 is its branch at Thodupuzha represented by branch Manager.  Complainant is the proprietor of a concern S3 Impex Systems, Thodupuzha by name.  He is a dealer of weighing machines, band sealer machines, hot code printers etc.  He purchases his goods for sale from concerns across India and collects them by transporting to his concern at Thodupuzha via service of opposite parties.  On 18.6.2020, complainant had purchased 10 band sealer machines, 2 hot code printers and 2 other                                                                                                                  (cont....2)

• 2  -

ancillary items from a concern ‘Darsh Impex India  Pvt. Ltd., Mulund, (East Mumbai).  These were packed and labelled in 13 boxes and entrusted on 6.7.2020,  to 2^nd opposite party for transportation via. 1^stopposite party to the concern of complainant.  Complainant, upon receiving information that the consignment had arrived with 1^st opposite party on 25.7.2020, had gone there and examined the same.  To his dismay,  he found that 6 boxes out of 13 were in damaged condition.  One band sealer machine was completely damaged.  Complainant had immediately informed 1^st opposite party and declined to collect the damaged goods.  According to complainant, goods in transit were damaged due to careless handling by the staff of opposite parties.  On 6.8.2020, complainant had sent legal notice to opposite parties outlining the entire facts and seeking a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  Opposite party, upon receipt of notice, had sent a reply raising frivolous contentions.  Complainant therefore prays for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss and damages suffered by him owing to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.

 

          2. Complaint was taken on file and notice was issued to opposite parties from this Commission.  2^nd opposite party was served.  He entered appearance and filed written version.  Notice sent to the address of 1^st opposite party was not served due to incorrect address.  Despite repeated directions for furnishing of correct address of 1^st opposite party, complainant has not furnished the same.  Therefore name of 1^st opposite party was struck off and case was proceeded against 2^nd opposite party alone.  Contentions raised by 2^nd opposite party in its written version are briefly narrated here under :

 

          2^nd opposite party admits that a consignment was booked by M/s. Darsh Impex India Pvt. Ltd. from Bhivandi in Maharashtra in favour of petitioner on 6.7.2020. as per way bill No.1050258621.All of the boxes were delivered to petitioner on 25.7.2020, from the branch office at Thodupuzha.  Complainant had, after fully satisfying himself that the boxes were intact and without damage, taken delivery of the same without any complaint.  subsequently, in a bid to make unlawful gains, he had sent lawyer notice raising frivolous contentions that a portion of the consignment was damaged for which he is to be compensated.  A reply was sent by 2^nd opposite party outlining the true facts and negating the claim for damages.  2^nd opposite party further submits that, were there to be any damages, complainant would not have taken delivery of the consignment on 25.7.2020, after paying  freight charge of Rs.5,296/-.  That it was the bounden duty of the consignee to make a note of loss occasioned to the consignment.  No such note or endorsement was made by the consignee in the copy of way bill.  Transport companies are doing business in accordance with the Provisions of Carriage By Road Act.  Complainant should have given a statutory notice of 180 days from the date of booking the consignment.  This complaint was filed on 27.11.2020.  Consignment was booked on 6.7.2020.  No statutory notice was given by complainant.  Hence complaint is barred                                                                                                                 (cont....3)

• 3  -

under the Act.  Besides the consignor is a necessary party in this proceedings.  He has not been impleaded.  There is no deficiency in service.  Complainant is not entitled for any damages, compensation or litigation costs.  Complaint is to be dismissed. 

 

          3. Thereafter case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides for taking steps.  Complainant was absent repeatedly on the date when the case was posted for evidence.  Hence evidence was closed.  Counsel for 2^nd opposite party submits that as there is no evidence from the side of complainant, 2^nd opposite party is not tendering any evidence.  Evidence was closed.  We have heard the learned counsel for 2^nd opposite party,  since counsel of the complainant or complainant were absent on 1.8.2022, the date when the matter was posted for evidence.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1.  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2.  Whether there was any deficiency in service on the side of 2^nd opposite party ?

3.  Whether complainant is liable to compensated ?

4.  Reliefs and costs ?

 

4. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          According to complainant, altogether 13 boxes were booked by his consignor, out of which 6 were found to be in a damaged condition while those reached the office of 1^st opposite party.  In proof of these allegations, complainant has produced altogether 6 documents.  1^st one is a tax invoice of the consigned goods.  2^nd document is copy of consignment tax invoice issued by 2^nd opposite party.  3^rd and 4^th documents are 6 photographs produced by complainant, which he claims to have taken from the office of opposite party No.1, when the consignment had arrived there.  5^th document is office copy of lawyer notice issued to opposite parties along with acknowledgement card and certificate of posting.  6^th one is reply notice sent by 2^nd opposite party. Out of these, complainant is mainly relying upon 6 photographs produced by him.  There is no evidence before us to prove that those photographs were taken of the disputed consignment.  That apart, 4 of the photographs which disclose some damage to the packing, do not show/reveal that the contents of the boxes were also damaged.  No Commission was taken out to examine the goods which were allegedly damaged in transit.  These were not produced before this Commission either for verification.  Damage to outer boxes will not ipso facto prove damages to the contents therein.  There is no evidence before us to show that the goods consigned to complainant by his consignor in Mumbai had sustained any damages as such.  Therefore, we find that complainant has not succeeded in proving that there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  Resultantly it is also find that complainant is not entitled for the damages prayed for or the litigation cost as such.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.                                                                                                    (cont.....4)

• 4  -

 

5. Point No.4 :

 

          In result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.

 

                    Pronounced by this Commission on this the   19^th  day of September, 2022

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                              Sd/-   

   SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                                                                          Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Appendix :  Nil.

 

 

 

                                                                                           Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                                     ASSITANT REGISTRAR