Date of Filing:18.06.2008<br /> Date of Order:31.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1363 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> M/S BRISK TECH ENGINEERS,<br /> No. 10, Hegganahalli, Behind Masjid Road,<br /> Near Peenya II Stage,<br /> Bangalore-560091,<br /> Represented by the Proprietor<br /> Sri. Anand Kumar. J. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> M/s Arammes India Pvt. Ltd., <br /> (a Courier Company)<br /> Kodihalli Main Road, HAL Airport,<br /> HAL Airport Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 008,<br /> Represented by <br /> Sri. Anand Srivastav,<br /> Station Manager. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, on 23rd November-2007 complainant booked a small parcel weighing 3.1 Kg., to M/s J.S Industries, Secunderabad, Andrapradesh through opposite party. Normally such parcels and documents booked through Courier Company will get delivered within 48 hours. In this case, the complainant enquired about the delivery status of the parcel on 30th November-2007. He was given wrong information. He again enquired into the matter in December-2007 and it was told that they are shifting their office to new premises and the parcel has been mislaid and they are searching for the parcel and arranged for delivery after locating the same. The customer of the complainant complained about the non receipt of the parcel. On enquiry it was told that parcel was missing and they are trying to find the whereabouts of the parcel. Sri. Anand Srivastav assured him that they would compensate for the loss. Complainant approached Chief General Manager at Mumbai who never cared to reply to his letter. In the 3rd week of January-2008 the Bangalore Station Manager Sri. Anand Srivastav visited complainant’s factory and assured that he would contact the Head Office and arrange for compensation and offered compensation of Rs.5,000/- though the same value was Rs.35,999/-. The item in question is a special tooling manufactured to need the specific requirement of customer for CNC application. The opposite party has not bothered to contact the complainant. They have no concerned for huge loss suffered by the complainant. Therefore, he has prayed that opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.76,000/-.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party through RPAD. Notice was served on the opposite party. In spite of service of notice the opposite party has not appeared before this Forum. Defence version also not sent. The representative of the opposite party has also not present when the case was called. Therefore, the opposite party has placed exparte. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of the complainant filed. Complainant was heard in person. <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. We have perused the complaint, documents and the legal notice. The complainant has produced copy of invoice. The cost of the tool as per the invoice is Rs.35,999/-. The complainant has produced courier receipt dated 23/11/2007. From the courier receipt it is clear that the parcel was to be delivered to M/S J.S. Industries, Secunderabad. The complainant has delivered the parcel containing tools to the opposite party, but unfortunately the parcel was not delivered to the destination. The complainant had contacted the opposite party and ultimately the parcel was found or located by the opposite party. The Station Manager Sri. Anand Srivastav offered a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. But the complainant had refused to accept the same because the value of the item sent was Rs.35,999/-. Since the opposite party has failed in its obligation and duty in delivering the parcel to the addressee, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The facts stated by the complainant in his complaint have gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter before this Forum though served with notice. The opposite party has failed to put up any defence version. There are absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. On the affidavit filed by the complainant it is very clear that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss caused to the complainant. In this case, the tools sent through courier was worth Rs.35,999/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the reimbursement of the price or value of the said item from the opposite party. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it is just, fair and proper to direct the opposite party to pay the value of the tool to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for the costs of the present proceedings. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.35,999/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 12% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realization. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JULY 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />