BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 31^st DAY OF MARCH 2022

                                   ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) Direct the OPs to return back all articles booked to ship from Bangalore to USA or order to pay the price of the article of Rs.2,10,000/-.

(b) Direct the OPs to pay back Rs.59,500/- that he collected from complainant for the shipping service.

(c) Direct the OPs to pay as mental agony compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

(d) Direct to pay the legal expenses

(e) To pass such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has availed the service of OPs for transporting the articles by paying Rs.59,500/- to the OP as a service charge.  The consignment was supposed to be delivered at New Jersy address of Sudha Iyer, daughter of the complainant.  But, consignment never reached Sudha Iyer at New Jersy.  The OPs having collected consignment charges failed to deliver the consignment.  Therefore, by issuing legal notice dated 30.01.2021 she called upon the OPs to pay the costs of consignment including consigning charges.  The OPs were not ready to answer the status of consignment.  Hence, this complaint.

3. Despite service of notice, the OPs failed to appear before this Commission.  The OPs have been placed exparte.

4. The complainant failed to file affidavit evidence.  No argument is advanced on behalf of the complainant.  Perused the records.   

5. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.2:- partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders        

REASONS

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Even though OPs have been placed exparte and even complainant has not filed affidavit evidence, but allegations made in the complaint remained unchallenged.  The question arises, whether the allegations made in the complaint and documents produced by the complainant prove the entire allegations.
8. It is borne out from the allegations made in the complaint and documents that the complainant by paying in all Rs.59,500/- availed the service of complainant for transportation of 3 cartoon boxes to be shifted from Bangalore to New Jersy, USA.  The consigner and consignee are the same person i.e. Ms.Shylaja Iyer.  The complainant claims as Brinda Iyer and referred the name of Sudha Iyer as consignee.  The complainant Brinda Iyer W/o Prem Sankar has executed power of attorney in favour of Smt.Aruna Vishwanathan.  Brinda Iyer w/o Prem Sankar is the complainant.  The name of the husband of Shylaja Iyer is not mentioned in the package list.  However, the complainant got issued legal notice to OPs for return of her goods, but OPs failed to give reply.
9. The complainant has produced documents showing that consignment worth Rs.69,500/- was only consigned by the complainant Brinda Iyer through the OP as could be seen from original invoice dated 27.11.2019.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that she handed over the articles worth Rs.2,10,000/- to the OPs for shifting the same to New Jersy, USA.  In view of the invoice dated 27.11.2019, it can be easily held that the complainant handed over the article worth Rs.69,500/- only to the OPs.
10. The complainant has produced certain photos of the consignment articles.  The E-mail notices were exchanged between complainant and OPs.  We carefully perused these exchanged E-mails.  On 12.01.2021, the complainant had send the E-mail that the consignment did not reach the destiny of daughter of complainant.  But subsequent documents indicate that the three boxes were booked for Sudha Iyer and one cartoon box booked for Shylaja Iyer.  It is proved from other reply E-mail of the OPs dated 3^rd March, 2021, the consigned articles are in safe with OPs and OPs expressed their intention to hand over the items in Bangalore.  These reply of the OPs clearly indicate that the OPs having collected consignment charges of Rs.59,500/-, failed to shift the consignment and consignment failed to reach the address of the consignee. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.
11. It is true that on 3^rd March, 2021 the OPs informed the consignee that your items are very safe with them and if she has no problem, so that OPs can shift the items since clients are started in shipping items in USA.  It further indicates that the OPs wanted to answer whether to shift the items or hand over the items in Bengaluru.  The consignee gave reply dated 05.03.2021 that asked the OPs to return the items and contact Aruna mobile number 963246380.  Despite such communication, neither goods returned at Bengaluru nor shifted to USA.  Thereafter, the complainant, consignee and OP remained silent.  Ultimately, by issuing legal notice dated 13.01.2021, the complainant called upon the OPs to send the consignment within 15 days without extra cost.  Despite such requests, the OPs failed to send the consignment either to USA or returned the consignment goods to the Bengaluru address by contacting Arunakumari suggested by the consignee.  This inaction on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in service.
12. The complainant claims Rs.2,10,000/- towards cost of articles, whereas invoice itself indicates that the total cost of all the goods is Rs.69,500/-.  Therefore, complainant is entitled to either these goods or Rs.69,500/- towards cost of these goods.
13. The complainant has also paid Rs.59,500/- and OP is liable to refund this amount.  The complainant claims Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.  Even after intimation, the complainant or Aruna came forward to collect the goods.  Under such circumstances, it is proper to award compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
14. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be allowed in part. The OPs are liable to refund Rs.69,500/- towards price of the articles, Rs.59,500/- towards collected shipping service charges and Rs.25,000/- as compensation.  The complainant has engaged the service of advocate, no court fee is paid.  Therefore, the cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.5,000/-.   We proceed to pass the following

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OPs shall refund Rs.69,500/- towards price of the articles, Rs.59,500/- towards collected shipping service charges, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
3. The OPs shall comply this order within 30 days from this date.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31^st March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-