Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1090/2017

M/s Kalpana Cargo Through Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ravi Sadi Emprioum - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 941 /2017

 

M/s. Ravi Saree Emporium, 56 Purohitji ka Katla, Jaipur.

Vs.

Manager, Kalpana Cargo, Fateh Singh ki Dharamshala, Near Hasanpura Railway Crossing, Jaipur.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1090/2017

 

Kalpana Cargo, through Manager, Kalpana Chamber, Fateh Singh Market, Near Hasanpura Railway Crossing, Jaipur.

Vs.

M/s. Ravi Saree Emporium, 56 Purohitji ka Katla, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 24.11.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

2

 

Mr. G.P.Gupta counsel for the complainant Ravi Saree Emporium

Mr.Pramod Kumar counsel for Kalpana Cargo

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the single order hence are decided by this common order.

 

Appeal No. 1090/2017 filed by Kalpana Cargo is filed with delay of 29 days but looking at the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the complainant Ravi Saree Emporium is that he booked sarees with Kalpana Cargo cost of which was Rs. 37,530/- but the Forum below has allowed only Rs. 2000/- for the cost of material hence, the claim should have been enhanced.

 

The contention of the respondent Kalpana Cargo is that he is not deficient and the claim should have been dismissed.

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that vide Anx. 2 sarees were booked from Jaipur to Barmer and the parcel could not be reached at the relevant place hence, the Forum below has rightly held the service provider as deficient.

 

The contention of the consumer is that cost of the booking material was Rs. 37,530/- which is evident from Ex. 1 bill and on Ex. 2 luggage receipt the bill number has also been mentioned hence, the claim should have been awarded accordingly.

 

There is no dispute about this fact that goods of Rs. 37,530/- were booked and bill number was also mentioned on Ex. 2 but the consumer has declared the value of the goods as only Rs.2000/- and no insurance cover was purchased and it is the specific condition between the parties that on the occasion of claim the service provider is only responsible upto Rs. 2000/- or insured value and admittedly no insurance was purchased and knowingly the consumer has declared the value

4

 

of the goods as Rs. 2000/- hence, he cannot get benefit out of his own fault and the Forum below has rightly awarded the claim for the declared value of Rs. 2000/-. Further more for mental agony and cost of proceedings Rs. 20,000/- is allowed.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in both the appeals and both appeals stand dismissed.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm