IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of January, 2011
Filed on 07.10.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.253/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Unnikrishnan, 1. The Manager, Kerala Transport Co.,
Kalathil Pharma, Chndanakkavu, XL/4598, Lucky Star Building,
Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha. Market Road, Ernakulam
(By Adv.R.Rajendraprasad)
2. Chottanikkara Amman Pharmasuiticals Distributors,
40/7547, 1st Floor,
Shanmukhanilayam,
Gopalaprabhu Road, Ernakulam
(By D.Sahadevan Nair)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri.Unnikrishnan, senior citizen has filed this complaint before the Forum on 07.10.10 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The allegation of the complainant are briefly stated as follows. For his livelihood, he has conducting a “pharma” under the name and style M/s.Kalathil Pharma, for distribution of medicines. The second opposite party in the C&F agent for M/s.Plethico Pharmasuiticals, Bombay. From the second opposite party, he had purchased certain medicines for distribution. Since certain product of medicines were stopped, by the manufacturer for supply, the second opposite party had requested him to return those medicines in his possession, for arranging payment for those medicines having the value of Rs.2318/40. As such on 22.05.09 he had entrusted a bundle of those medicines with the first opposite party, for sending the same to the second opposite party. At the time of entrusting with the bundle, the first opposite party collected a sum of Rs.80/- by way freight charge and they had issued receipt to him vide No.10691352. Since the opposite party is a good Transport company he thought that the said bundle will reach the second opposite party in time. But so far he had not received any reply or amount from the second opposite party. It is alleged that the first opposite party had not entrusted the bundle with the second opposite party in time. The first opposite party had intimated him that the bundle containing the medicine had reached in their godown and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3/- per day for demurrages from 31.05.10 onwards. He had sent a letter dated, 18.05.2010 to the first opposite party, stating the whole matter and further intimated them that he had no knowledge of the non-receipt of the bundle by the second opposite party so far. So he had sent a notice to the first opposite party vide dated, 21.06.2010 claming damages. The first opposite party had not entrusted the bundle to the second opposite party willfully and not furnished the whereabouts of the bundle to him for the last one year and that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. So far, he has not obtained any relief from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint:
2. Notices were issued to the parties, First opposite party entered appearance before the Forum and filed version. Second opposite party absent. Considering the absence of the second opposite party, they were set exparte by this Forum on 04.12.10.
3. In the version of the first opposite party, it is stated that matters will not come with in the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and they have no knowledge about the contract between the complainant and the second opposite party. It is stated that the complainant entrusted the parcel to them with certain condition and they were agreed to the door delivery of the parcel to the second opposite party. It is stated that they had issued a letter to the complainant on 09.11.10 intimating the correct day of arrival of parcel at their office and that they are entitled to get the demurrage. It is further stated that they had intimated the arrival of parcel to the second opposite party through telephone on several occasions and that matter was also communicated to the complainant through telephone. It is stated that they had not received any notice dated, 21.06.10 and 17.06.10 from the complainant and that there is no latches or negligence on their part and they are not legally bound to pay any compensation or damages to the complainant.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service negligence or latches on the part of the first opposite party in entrusting the parcel to the second opposite party in time.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the first opposite party.
Issue 1 and 2
5. Complainant had filed proof affidavit in support of his allegation and produced documents for evidence – Exts A1 to A5 marked – and he has been cross examined by the first opposite party. A1 is the details of medicine items sent on 22.05.09 by the complainant to the second opposite party as per the request of the second opposite party. It shows that the total cost of the medicine comes to Rs.2318/40. Ext.A2 is the parcel Receipt No.10691352 dated, 22.05.09 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant at the time of accepting the parcel. The receipt shows that the first opposite party had accepted a sum of Rs.80/- towards the charges for sending the parcel to the second opposite party. The receipt further shows that the declared value of goods comes to Rs.2318/40. Ext.A3 is the first notice dated, 10.04.10 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant, claiming demurrage charges at the rate of Rs.3/- for the received parcel on 25.05.10. Ext.A4 is the notice dated, 18.05.10 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. It shows the whole matter regarding the parcel entrusted by the complainant for sending the same to the second opposite party (with copy to the second opposite party) Ext.A5 is the letter dated, 21.06.10 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party, seeking detailed clarifications regarding the parcel and he further intimated them regarding the legal steps to be taken to recover the losses caused due to the deficiency of services on the part of the first opposite party.
6. On the side of the first opposite party they have filed 3 documents in evidence and submitted that they have no oral evidence - .Documents marked as Ext.B1 to B3 – Ext.B1 is the letter dated, 17.06.10 of the first opposite party issued to the complainant. The letter shows that they have informed the arrival of the parcel to the second opposite party through phone. Since the party had not taken delivery, they informed both parties to clear their consignments from their godown. Ext.B2 is the letter dated, 09.11.10 of the first opposite party to the complainant, regarding the correction of certain dates from 25.05.10, 31.05.10 to 25.05.09 and 31.05.09. Ext.B3 is the Advocate notice dated, 15.11.10 sent by the first opposite party to the complainant intimating the legal action to be taken against the complainant.
7. We have fully examined the whole matter of this case and perused records produced by the complainant and first opposite party in evidence and heard the matter in detail. The complainant has entrusted a bundle with medicine with the first opposite party on 22.05.2009 for sending the same to the second opposite party after remitting a payment of Rs.80/- to the first opposite party. The receipt issued by the first opposite party show that the declared value of goods comes to Rs.2318/40(Ext.A1). Complainant thought that the bundle had reached the second opposite party in time. The complainant had no information about the bundle and he had not obtained the amount from the second opposite party. After a period of one year, ie., on 10.04.10, the first opposite party sent a notice to the complainant, stating that the article reached at their destination on 25.05.10, and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3/- per day as demurrages (Ext.A3). Ext.B2 shows the corrected days from 25.05.10 to 25.05.09. On 18.05.10 the complainant addressed to the first opposite party, requesting to furnish the reasons as to why the consignment has not been delivered to the consignee during the last one year. Since the first opposite party has not sent any reply to the complainant regarding the above matter, he has filed this complaint on 07.10.10 before this Forum seeking relief.
8. On a reading of the whole matter it can be seen that after accepting the fee for the delivery the article to the second opposite party, the first opposite party has not taken any sincere steps to entrust the bundle with medicine, having a value of Rs.2318/40; to the second opposite party in time. The first opposite party has contended that they have informed the second opposite party regarding the consignment through the phone and second opposite party was not willing to accept the bundle. If so, the first opposite party ought to have taken necessary steps to return the bundle to the complainant with the details of non acceptance of the bundle by the second opposite party, immediately. But, the first opposite party had not cared to send back the bundle to the complainant in time and not furnished any reasons thereof to the complainant. Instead of return the bundle to the complainant in time the first opposite party vide letter dated, 10.04.10 informed the complainant that the article reached their destination on 25.05.10 (later corrected as 25.05.09) and directed him to remit the demurrage. It is further noticed that after filing the complaint before this Forum by the complainant on 07.10.10, and after accepting the notice of this the Forum regarding the case, the first opposite party had sent Advocate notice to the complainant on 15.11.10 intimating the legal action to be taken against the complainant. It is to be treated that the bundle may be in the godown of the first opposite party without entrusting it to the second opposite party or without sending back to the complainant for a period of one year. On a verification of the entire matter of this case it can be seen that there is unfair trade practice, grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the part of the first opposite party by way of keeping the bundle with them purposefully for a period of one year without entrusting it to the second opposite party or without return back to the complainant. For this the first opposite party is answerable to the complainant. After collecting payment for sending the bundle to the second opposite party, the first opposite party is fully bound to entrust the same, with the second opposite party in time. In case, any default for this, the complainant is fully entitled to get the compensation and costs from the first opposite party. The contentions raised by the first opposite party regarding the parcel will not sustain as a valid grounds for delay for entrusting the same to the second opposite party or return to the complainant, since it has no locus standi and without any bonafides. So we are of the view that the allegation raised by the complainant against the first opposite party is to be treated as genuine and that the complainant is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the first opposite party to return the value of the medicine noted in the receipt for consignment ie., Rs.2318/40, along with the charge of Rs.80/- collected from the complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.25000/- for the mental agony, pain, monitory loss, physical strain, harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant by way of non-entrusting the bundle to the second opposite party in time purposefully,by the first opposite party and evading from furnishing the details of the said bundle to the complainant in time willfully, due to the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice of the first opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, we are hereby directing the first opposite party to pay sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) as punitive costs to the complainant and firther directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) as court costs to this proceedings. We further direct to first opposite party to comply with this order within 30 days from the state of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - The statement contains the names and value of medicine
Ext.A2 - Receipt of parcel issued by the first Opposite party on 22.05.09
Ext.A3 - The notice issued by the first opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A4 - The notice issued by the complainant to the first Opposite party
Ext.A5 - The notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Letter dated, 17.06.10 of the first opposite party issued to the
complainant
Ext.B2 - Letter dated, 09.11.10 of the first opposite party to the complainant
Ext.B3 - Advocate notice dated, 15.11.10 sent by the first opposite party to
the complainant
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
