Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/38/2014

CONTI TRAVELS, THE MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAYA FASHIONS, PROPRIETOR - Opp.Party(s)

B.L. LAVANYA

31 Jan 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                  Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                         :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 38 of 2014

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.405/2012 dated 19.04.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F, Coimbatore

 

Monday, the 31^st day of January 2022

 

The Manager

M/s. CONTI Travels

Avinashi Road

Coimbatore – 18.                                       .. Appellant/ Opposite Party

 

- Vs -

Maya Fashions

Rep. by its Proprietor

  Muralidharan

861, Cross Cut Road

(Opp. Singapore Plaza)

Gandhipuram

Coimbatore – 18.                                                   .. Respondent / Complainant

 

 

    Counsel for Appellant /Opposite party              : M/s. B.L. Lavanya

    Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant         : M/s. P. Damodaran

                                                                               (No representation)

   

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 19.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant / Opposite Party and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed under Section 12 & 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, as against the order dated 19.04.2013 passed in C.C. No.405 of 2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore.

 

2.       The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Respondent / Complainant is that on 28.05.2011, the complainant entrusted two parcels containing cloth materials to the opposite party Travel Agents, to be sent to Bangalore.  The opposite party also collected Rs.300/- as service charges and issued a receipt bearing No.401.  On 02.06.2011, the complainant came to know from the consignee that they have received only one parcel.  Hence, the complainant enquired with the opposite party with regard to the undelivered parcel.  But, the opposite party failed to give a proper reply. Therefore, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party through a consumer welfare organisation.  The value of the material sent in the missing parcel is Rs.23,891/-.  Though the opposite received the notice sent through the consumer welfare organisation on 16.03.2012, they did not send any reply.  Therefore, the opposite party had committed deficiency of service.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to direct the opposite to pay a sum of Rs.23,891/- being the value of the missing parcel and for other relief.

 

3.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party filing a written version stating that it is true that the complainant entrusted two parcels to the opposite party on 28.05.2011 to be delivered at Bangalore for the consignee Riti’s.  The opposite party had also issued a receipt No.401 for collecting a sum of Rs.300/-, which comprises luggage charges for a sum of Rs.270/- and loading & unloading charges of Rs.30/-.  The complainant had not declared the contents of the parcel or the value of the parcels sent by the consignor viz., the complainant to the consignee, the opposite party.  The parcels were despatched to their Bangalore office of the opposite party but only one parcel was delivered and a report was also issued to the consignee by the officials of the opposite party.  The parcel which was not handed over contained goods worth Rs.23,831/- is denied.  The complainant is put to strict proof that the parcel contained the goods which are reflected in their invoice dated 28.05.2011 under Nos. 1040 & 1041, produced before this Forum.  Therefore, absolutely there is no deficiency of service by the opposite party.

 

4.  In order to prove the claim, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and 6 documents were filed as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.  On the side of the respondent/ opposite party proof affidavit was filed and no exhibits were marked. 

 

5.  After analyzing the entire evidence and pleadings, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.23,830/- being the cost of the undelivered consignment and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party has come forward with the appeal.

 

6.   The only submission made before this Appellate Commission is that at the time of booking the consignment the complainant did not declare the contents of the parcel or the value of the parcel, to the opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for the missing articles, since the complainant had signed the contract terms printed therein, more particularly, the restricted liability mentioned in the consignment note would bind upon him.  Therefore, he cannot claim the value of the consignment Rs.23,830/- .  Thus the counsel for the opposite party sought for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.

 

7.  Heard  the arguments and perused the material available on records. 

 

8.  On perusal of the records, we find that in the cash receipt given by the opposite party, absolutely no terms were printed with regard to the restricted liability.  Therefore, the submission made by the counsel for the opposite party that the complainant had signed the terms of contract printed therein more particularly the restricted liability would bind upon the complainant, cannot be accepted in this case.

 

9.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and hence the same is confirmed.  Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/January/2022