Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member . <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency of service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and brief fact and as follows:-<br /> The Complainant, a dealer in cosmetic items working for the Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) had booked some short expiry and non saleable items to the Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) KOPRAN worth Rs.2,42,854.86/-(Rupees two lac forty two thousand eight hundred fifty four and eighty six paise)only with Opposite Party No.1(one) through Opposite Party No.2(two), its branch office at Bargarh on Dt.28/06/2006. The goods was to be delivered to KOPRAN on door delivery basis and accordingly the consignment note was issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two). After a pretty long time when the Complainant found the value of the goods so return by him has not been credited to his account by Kopran, he started inquiry. The Opposite Party No.1(one) vide its letter Dt.28/11/2007 informed that the said consignment was still lying with it, asking the Complainant to take delivery of the consignment sent to Kopran paying its dues and charges or it would be sold away. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1(one) with a copy of the letter to Opposite Party No.2(two), that the consignment was issued door delivery basis and that it should have been delivered to the Consignee/Kopran at its place and that it is the Opposite Party No.1(one) who is responsible for the wastage of the goods worth Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees two lac fifty thousand)only. The Complainant has not yet received any communication from the Opposite Party No.1(one) about the fate of consignment and the value of the goods has not yet been credited to his account by Kopran. This amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of service by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) towards the Complainant for which the Complainant claims Rs. 2,42,854.86/-(Rupees two lac forty two thousand eight hundred fifty four and eighty six paise)only the value of the goods, including interest over the same and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards mental agony and harassment along with litigation expenses.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version contends that the Complainant doe not state that he had sent the original consignee copy to the consignee to take delivery of the goods. The goods sent were returned as (certain cosmetic and others semi perishable value goods/ expired cum rejected returned goods having no commercial value), the consignment on door delivery against “To pay” freight and original consignee copy of the consignment at destination. The consignee was contacted for door delivery on payment of the freight and production of the original consignee copy but the consignee, Opposite Party No.4(four) declined to do so and his staff questioned as to whether the consignee has granted any prior authority or certificate to the transporter Opposite parties to do so. In fact, the Consigner/Complainant had not given any such certificate or authority of the consignee to this Opposite Party transporter. The Consigneer was contacted but did not take any steps to take delivery of the goods and the goods remain in the godown, the same being semi perishable having no commercial value. As a result the Opposite Parties transporter were constrained to dispose of the same at the risk cost and consequences of the Consigner/Complainant. In the circumstances no case has been made out against the Opposite Parties/transporter by the Complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.<br /> <br /> Opposite Party No.1(one), No.3(three) and No.4(four) have been set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) which is the local branch of the transporting company in its version admits the receipt of the consignee goods at destination. It takes the plea that the consignee/Opposite Party No.4(four) on contact for door delivery declined to pay the freight and produce the original consignee copy and also it did not take any step to take delivery of the goods and consequently the goods were kept in the gowdown and ultimately disposed of the same at the risk/cost of the consigneer/Complainant as the Complainant did not take delivery of the goods even after being contacted. Admittedly the goods was consigned on Dt.28/06/2006 for door delivery to the consignee at Bhiwandi. But the Opposite Party transport company has intimated the Compainant/Consigner about the non-delivery of the goods and to take immediate delivery thereof vide its letter Dt.28/11/2007 i.e. after an expiry of eighteen months from the date of consignment. This amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties/transport company towards the Complainant. The copy of way bill which is a government document states the value of the goods to be Rs. 2,42,854.86/-(Rupees two lac forty two thousand eight hundred fifty four and eighty six paise)only. Naturally the Opposite Parties transport company is liable to make good the loss of the aforesaid amount to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> No relief has been sought against Opposite Party No.3(thee) and No.4(four) who are the consignee Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> In the result, the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are directed, jointly and severally, to pay to the Complainant Rs. 2,42,854.86/-(Rupees two lac forty two thousand eight hundred fifty four and eighty six paise)only along with interest @ 9%(nine percent) interest per annum over the amount chargeable w.e.f. Dt.28/06/2006 to the date of this Order towards the cost of the goods/consigned, and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards cost/compensation within thirty days hence, failing which the entire amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br />