BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of May 2012 Filed on : 02-04-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.186/2011
Between
K.K. Rajappan, : Complainant
S/o. P.T. Koshy, Proprietor, (By Adv. George Cherian
M/s. Ben Electronics, Karippaparambil, Karippa
Paramara Building, parambil Associates,
Opp. Town Hall, Cochin-682 018. HB.48, Panampilly Nagar,
Kochi-682 036)
And
M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. : Opposite party
40/7433, MKV Building, (By Adv. Antony Xavier
Next to Shenoy’s Theatre, M/s. S.G. Chancery Chambers
M.G. Road, Kochi-35. Cochin-18)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant on 07-02-2011 despatched a battery having a value of Rs. 27,000/- to the commanding officer INS Utkrosh, Port Blare, Andamans through the opposite party. The opposite party accepted the consignment on 07-02-2011 and realized Rs. 6,022/- towards freight charges inclusive of Rs. 540/- towards insurance premium. The consignment was sealed in the presence of the opposite party to ensure that there was no power supply and explosive in the consignment. The consignment reached the consignee on 11-02-2011 in a damaged condition. Accordingly the consignee on the same day returned the consignment to the manager of the blue dart with whom the opposite party has a sales alliance and which is the business unit of the opposite party. On 15-02-2011 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party to make necessary arrangements to facilitate the insurance payment. The opposite party sent an E-mail dated 02-03-2011 denying the claim of the complainant stating that the shipment was received with no mention of damage. The complainant had submitted to the opposite party the copy of the letter of commanding officer INS Utkrosh, Port blair Andamans wherein it is clearly stated that the package was delivered in a dented and damaged condition. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had to suffer loss to the tune of Rs. 33,022/- which includes the price of the battery charges and courier charges. The complainant is entitled to get the amount from the opposite party together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2.The version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party, Since the consignment was entrusted to Blue Dart. So the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party has never accepted the consignment which is the subject matter of the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the value of the
consignment and the freight charges ?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay costs of the
proceedings to the complainant?
5. Points Nos.i&ii. According to the complainant he entrusted a battery with the opposite party to sent it to Port Blair, Andaman. Ext. A3 letter issued by the consignee goes to show that they have received the package of the battery in a damaged condition. The opposite party contented that Blue Dart Courier is the agency who accepted the consignment note from the opposite party.
6. We are not to entertain the case of the opposite party since thought Ext. A2 receipt was issued by Blue Dart Courier on the reverse of the A2 the opposite party has affixed their seal. Moreover the opposite party did not dispute the case of the complainant that the opposite party has received the consignment directly from the complainant. Which goes to show that the opposite party had received the consignment from the complainant. It is not in dispute that the complainant had disclosed the price of the consignment at the time of entrustment of the same with the opposite party and while the same was insured. Further Ext. A2 goes to show that the opposite party had collected a sum of Rs. 6,022/- from the complainant. It is to be noted that the opposite party failed to take any steps to process the insurance claim for which an amount of Rs. 540/- was collected which could necessarily be a legal remedy. In all respects there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is pertinent to note the opposite party had not intimated the complainant that they have entrusted the delivery of the consignment to Blue Dart. It is affirmed and accepted law that a delegate is not to further delegate (Delegatus non protest delegare) Therefore the opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount as per Ext. A1 and A2 together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. It is made clear that the opposite party is at liberty to claim any damages from Blue Dart if so advised.
7. In the result, we allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall pay the amount as per Exts. A1 and A2 to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 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 : Tax invoice
A2 : Copy of bill
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 01-02-2011
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 15/02/2011
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 02-03-2011
Opposite party’s exhibits: : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : K.K. Rajappan
