Date of Filing:17.09.2008<br /> Date of Order:19.12.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 2041 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> M/s. Venkateshwara Silk Kendra<br /> Venkataram Mansion, No. 22/2<br /> Basavanna Lane, K.R. Setty Pet<br /> J.M. Road Cross, Bangalore 560 002<br /> Rept. By its Partner D.V. Srinivasa Babu Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. M/s. K.P.N. Speed Parcel Services (P) Ltd.<br /> Head Office, No. 23-B, Rajaji Street<br /> Swarna Puri, Salem 660 004<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. K.P.N. Speed Parcel Services (P) Ltd.<br /> No. 24/3, H. Siddaiah Road<br /> (Near BMTC Bus Depot)<br /> Double Road, Wilson Garden<br /> Bangalore<br /> <br /> 3. M/s. K.P.N. Speed Parcel Services (P) Ltd.<br /> Chickpet, Kilari Road<br /> Bangalore Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is a registered firm and doing sarees business. Complainant has sent silk sarees goods parcel amounting to Rs. 54,215/- through opposite party No. 3 to M/s. Kalima Silk Centre, Chidambaram. Complainant submits that the consignment was not delivered to the concerned party. The complainant enquired about the consignment with the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party did not respond properly. The complainant wrote letters to 1st and 2nd opposite parties about non-delivery of the consignment. Complainant submits that the parcel has not been traced till today. The act of opposite parties clearly shows deficiency of service. Complainant issued legal notice dated 22.08.2008 to opposite parties claiming compensation. The opposite parties neither replied nor complied to the terms of the notice. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties through RPAD. Notice served. When the case was called for hearing the opposite party No. 1 has not appeared before this forum. Opposite party No. 2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and defence version filed stating that the complaint is wholly misconceived and untenable. It is also submitted that complainant himself has accepted the terms and conditions of booking. The liability of the opposite parties shall be restricted only ten times of the freight charges that has been paid by the complainant. The complainant in the present case has paid a sum of Rs 80/- as freight charges. The complainant has not disclosed or declared the value of the goods to the opposite parties. The forum has no jurisdiction to dispose the complaint. It is admitted by the opposite parties that complainant approached the 3rd opposite party for transportation of 1 PB-ply bundle from Bangalore to Chidambaram. 3rd opposite party collected freight charges of Rs. 80/- subject to the terms and conditions. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant has not disclosed or declared the value of the poly bundle nor contents therein. The 3rd opposite party has already made a payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of the alleged claim. Hence, the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the case.<br /> 3. Heard the arguments.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> “1. Whether the complaint is bonafide?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is guilty of suppressing the facts?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?<br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint, defence version and documents.<br /> 6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had sent parcel consisting of silk sarees through the opposite party company. But unfortunately, the said consignment has not reached the destination. Therefore, the complainant has prayed the value of the consignment which was consisting of silk sarees and compensation. It is the case of the opposite parties that the 3rd opposite party has already made payment of Rs. 20,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant has totally suppressed the above payment in the complaint. Therefore, the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint. The opposite party has produced zerox copy of the Parcel Booking Receipt dated 03.10.2007. On the back side of that receipt there is endorsement that complainant received Rs. 10,000/- on 28.01.2008, Rs. 5,000/- on 20.03.2008 and again on 17.07.2008 Rs. 5,000/- was received. On the said endorsement there are signatures of complainant firm with seal as Venkateshwara Silk Kendra. The complainant has produced the original booking receipt dated 03.10.2007 along with complaint. On the back of the said receipt the endorsement made by the complainant in respect of receipt of the amount from the opposite parties had been removed by use of whitener. This receipt has been produced attached to white paper by stapling so as to removal of endorsement shall not be seen by the forum. The complainant has not disclosed in his complaint the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties. Even in the legal notice sent to opposite parties the complainant has not disclosed receipt of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties. The complainant is guilty of suppression of facts. The complainant is also guilty of manipulation of documents. The complainant misguided the forum by not disclosing the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- on three different dates from the opposite parties. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. This complaint is not bonafide. A person who has come to the forum by suppressing facts and with a malafide intention is not entitled to get any relief from the hands of the forum. The removal of endorsement of receipt of the amount from the opposite parties by using whitener is really shocking and such kind of manipulation of documents is really very bad on the part of the complainant. This kind of attitude or suppression of facts shall not be allowed. The complaint of the complainant not only deserves to be dismissed on this ground he also requires to be penalized for suppressing the facts and manipulating document. The complainant who has come to the fora for seeking justice is guilty of suppression of facts and manipulation of documents. Therefore, such a person is not entitled to any relief from the hands of fora. Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with a strong warning that the complainant who comes to fora for seeking justice should be fair enough disclosing the real facts. Manipulation of documents being a serious offence the complainant should know that such things shall not happen in future. With this warning the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />