Order No. 14 dt. 10/06/2019
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant / consignor booked 3 big packets weighing 139 kg consigning of a good number of boutique sarees approximate value of Rs.8,50,000/-, the price ranges from Rs.1500/- to Rs.5000/- each on 24.3.18 with o.p. no.1, a branch office of o.p. no.2 under consignment no.079 for delivery of the said goods to the complainant at Kolkata from the office of o.p. no.2. The complainant / consignor has paid Rs.3200/- for the said transportation. It was informed to the complainant that after 3 days the delivery would be made from the office of o.p. no.2. The complainant visited the office of o.p. no.2 regularly, but o.p. no.2 avoided to talk to the complainant to the query of the said goods booked for transportation. The complainant, thereafter, sent a lawyer’s notice claiming the amount of the value of the goods consigned for transportation through o.p. no.1 and to be delivered by o.p. no.2, but they did not pay any heed, for by which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to deliver the goods under consignment no.079 dt.24.3.18 to the complainant, alternatively prayed for price of goods of Rs.8,50,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v the o.p. no.1 stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per the C.P. Act. It was further stated that o.p. no.1 is not the branch office of o.p.no.2. The o.p. no.2 has no branch at Ahmadabad and o.p. no.2 accepts the booking material for different courier services for different sectors. The complainant actually booked the material at Neha Sky Cargo of Rabara Vas, Dolat Khana, Sarangpur, Ahmadabad. The o.p. no.1 has no knowledge about the value of goods as no bill or GST Bill has been given. No transit loss insurance has been taken as per the consignment note signed by them and she is entitled to get claim of Rs.50/- per Kg. It was further alleged that Neha Sky Cargo booked the material and sent the same through Polo Trans Logistic from Ahmadabad to Kolkata and the same was lost from the custody of railway authority on the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 categorically stated that they cannot be held liable for any compensation of any payment of the lost goods of the complainant.
In their w/v the o.p. no.2 stated that o.p. no.2 is not the branch office of o.p. no.1. The o.p. no.2 has no branch at Ahmadabad. The complainant actually booked the material at Neha Sky Cargo of Rabara Vas, Dolat Khana, Sarangpur, Ahmadabad. The o.p. no.2 made an investigation and found that Neha Sky Cargo sent the materials to Polo Trans Logistic from Ahmadabad to Kolkata and during transmission of the materials the same was lost from the custody of railway authority. Since the article was not booked at the office of o.p. no.2, therefore, o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for any compensation or cost and on the basis of the said fact o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ as per Sec 2(d) of the C.P. Act?
- Whether the o.ps. failed and neglected to supply the goods booked by the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant / consignor booked 3 big packets weighing 139 kg consigning of a good number of boutique sarees approximate value of Rs.8,50,000/-, the price ranges from Rs.1500/- to Rs.5000/- each on 24.3.18 with o.p. no.1, a branch office of o.p. no.2 under consignment no.079 for delivery of the said goods to the complainant at Kolkata from the office of o.p. no.2. The complainant / consignor has paid Rs.3200/- for the said transportation. It was informed to the complainant that after 3 days the delivery would be made from the office of o.p. no.2. The complainant visited the office of o.p. no.2 regularly, but o.p. no.2 avoided to talk to the complainant to the query of the said goods booked for transportation. The complainant, thereafter, sent a lawyer’s notice claiming the amount of the value of the goods consigned for transportation through o.p. no.1 and to be delivered by o.p. no.2, but they did not pay any heed, for by which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to deliver the goods under consignment no.079 dt.24.3.18 to the complainant, alternatively prayed for price of goods of Rs.8,50,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that the complainant is not a consumer as per the C.P. Act. It was further stated that o.p. no.1 is not the branch office of o.p.no.2. The o.p. no.2 has no branch at Ahmadabad and o.p. no.2 accepts the booking material for different courier services for different sectors. The complainant actually booked the material at Neha Sky Cargo of Rabara Vas, Dolat Khana, Sarangpur, Ahmadabad. The o.p. no.1 has no knowledge about the value of goods as no bill or GST Bill has been given. No transit loss insurance has been taken as per the consignment note signed by them and she is entitled to get claim of Rs.50/- per Kg. It was further alleged that Neha Sky Cargo booked the material and sent the same through Polo Trans Logistic from Ahmadabad to Kolkata and the same was lost from the custody of railway authority on the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 categorically stated that they cannot be held liable for any compensation of any payment of the lost goods of the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that o.p. no.2 is not the branch office of o.p. no.1. The o.p. no.2 has no branch at Ahmadabad. The complainant actually booked the material at Neha Sky Cargo of Rabara Vas, Dolat Khana, Sarangpur, Ahmadabad. The o.p. no.2 made an investigation and found that Neha Sky Cargo sent the materials to Polo Trans Logistic from Ahmadabad to Kolkata and during transmission of the materials the same was lost from the custody of railway authority. Since the article was not booked at the office of o.p. no.2, therefore, o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for any compensation or cost and on the basis of the said fact o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant has stated that she is doing a business for her livelihood and as per Sec 2(d) of the C.P. Act the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and o.ps. being service providers and o.ps. failed and neglected to deliver the goods / consignment; the complainant will be entitled for redressal of her grievance as per the C.P. Act. So far as the point raised by the complainant she booked the articles for transportation and paid the amount of Rs.3200/- to o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.1 agreed to deliver the articles through their office situated at 13, Tarachand Dutta Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata-73 within P.S. Jorasanko. The o.ps. categorically stated that the articles booked through Neha Sky Cargo and in support of the said contention o.p. could not produce any document to that effect; on the contrary, from the materials on record it appears that the consignment was booked through Tridev Express Cargo, Ahmadabad for which the complainant paid Rs.3200/- weighing 139 kg containing 3 packets. The said consignment was not delivered to the complainant. It has not been challenged by o.ps. The o.ps. all through tried to establish the fact that the consignment was actually booked through Neha Sky Cargo, but no such document has been filed to that effect. From the materials on record it appears that the complainant had filed the document to show that o.p. no.1 has its office at 13, Tarachand Dutta Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata-73. Therefore, the argument advanced by o.ps. the case is not maintainable due to non joinder of necessary parties cannot be accepted since o.ps. failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of their contention that the consignment was booked through Neha Sky Cargo. Therefore, we hold that the consignment was not delivered to the complainant though the complainant paid the necessary charges for the said consignment. The complainant has claimed that the price of the goods were of Rs.8,50,000/-, but no documentary evidence was filed to that effect. The complainant at least could have filed the receipts showing that the goods were purchased from Ahmadabad with such value of the goods which were handed over to o.p. no.1 for transporting the same to Kolkata. The complainant has not filed any documentary evidence regarding the value of goods and the GST Bill to corroborate the fact of the value of the goods consigned by her through o.p. no.1 for transportation of the same to be delivered through o.p. no.2. In view of the said fact mere statement made by the complainant that she lost the articles worth of Rs.8,50,000/- cannot be accepted. in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get compensation of Rs.13,000/- i.e. 130 kgs x 100 as per the amount mentioned in the overleaf of the receipt plus the amount of transportation charge of Rs.3200/- i.e. the complainant will be entitled to get compensation of Rs.16,200/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.154/2018 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.16,200/- (Rupees seventeen thousand one hundred) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
