Date of Filing:17.04.2009<br /> Date of Order:26.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> <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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 888 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Ibex Gallagher Pvt. Ltd.<br /> Having its Registered Office at<br /> No. 175/54, Rathnavilas Road<br /> Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560004<br /> Rep. by its Manager (Market Co-ord)<br /> Rani Venkatesh, W/o. Venkatesh S. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Professional Courier & Cargo<br /> Having its registered head office at<br /> No. 51/52/53, Sai Chambers<br /> 1st Floor, Plot No. 44, Sector 11<br /> CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Professional Courier & Cargo<br /> Having its Customer Cell Center at<br /> No. 475/2, 1st Floor, 1st Cross<br /> 5th Block, KHB Colony, Kormangala<br /> Bangalore 560095<br /> Rep. by its Manager<br /> <br /> 3. M/s. Professional Courier & Cargo<br /> No. 42/2263, Providence Road<br /> Providence Jn., Kochi 682018<br /> Rep. by its Manager<br /> <br /> 4. Ajay Kumar<br /> Proprietor, M/s. United Fence System<br /> Having its office at Agnas<br /> Velliamattam Post, Thodupuzha<br /> Idukki District 685588<br /> Kerala State Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant had entered into dealership agreement of opposite party No. 4. All the transactions were carried out through bank. Opposite party No. 4 placed the orders for supply of materials. Complainant raised invoice dated 02.06.2008 and 03.06.2008. Total cost of the materials was Rs. 26,096/-. Complainant booked the consignment with the transporter Kerala Roadways Ltd. The original consignee copy of the consignment note was sent through the professional couriers addressed to the Manager, Federal Bank, Idukki. Same was collected by the collection boy working with the Sri Sai Lakshmi Enterprises for the Professional Couriers. The 4th opposite party was supposed to get the goods released through Federal Bank by making payment to the bank. Opposite party No. 4 had managed to procure the consignee copy of the consignment note along with documents from the 3rd opposite party. Having procured the consignee copy without making payment towards the materials, directly approached the Kerala Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and took the delivery of the goods. 3rd opposite party has caused loss to the tune of Rs. 26,096/- to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 to 3 has committed deficiency in service. Opposite party No. 1 to 3 collected amount for the service under taken by them. As a result of deficiency of service rendered by opposite party No. 1 to 3 complainant has not only lost the material but allowed the opposite party No. 4 to make unlawful gain. Complainant quantifies loss and damage suffered by it as a result of deficiency of service rendered by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, complainant requested that opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 26,096/- being the cost of the material and Rs. 1,00,000/- being the damages.<br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notice issued to the opposite parties sent through RPAD. On 15.06.2009 opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared through advocate and vakalath was filed. Opposite party No. 4 remained absent though served with notice. Therefore, opposite party No. 4 was placed as exparte. Case was adjourned to 03.07.2009 for filing defence version. On that date also defence version not filed and again time was granted up to 23.07.2009 for version. On that date also opposite parties No. 1 to 3 did not file defence version. Again the case was adjourned to 13.08.2009. On that date opposite parties No. 1 to 3 remained absent. It was taken that defence version not filed. <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. Opposite parties have not even filed affidavit evidence on their behalf. Therefore, arguments for learned advocate for complainant heard and matter is taken for orders.<br /> 4. I have gone through the complaint and documents produced by the complainant.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 3?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for cost of material of Rs. 26,096/-?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for damages of Rs. 1,00,000?<br /> 6. The complainant has produced purchase order form dated 29.05.2008. This form clearly shows bankers details and Federal Bank Ltd., Velliamattam has been shown as concerned bank. Copy of tax invoices have been produced. One tax invoice is dated 02.06.2008. This is for Rs. 20,473.50. In this tax invoice also Federal Bank Ltd. has been mentioned for payment. Another tax invoice is dated 03.06.2008 for Rs. 5,623/-. This document also shows the collecting bank as Federal Bank Ltd. Complainant is a consigner and opposite party No. 4 is a consignee. In order to show the documents have been sent to the Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. the complainant has produced Profession Couriers receipt dated 04.06.2008. From the receipts / voucher it is clear that the Professional Couriers had received consignment which contains documents to be delivered to the Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Idukki. The complainant has produced documents of Sri Sai Lakshmi Enterprises, the collecting agent on behalf of Professional Couriers. From this document the consignment BLR 3196622 and BLR3196623 had been received and Rs. 30/- for each was collected from the complainant. From the documents produced by the complainant, it is very clear that complainant had handed over the consignment containing documents to the professional couriers to be delivered to the Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. But, unfortunately the courier service failed to deliver the consignment to the addressee. The complainant had produced a letter of the Federal Bank Ltd. dated 09.12.2008 stating that they have not received the documents and the bank manager submitted in the letter to refer the matter with the courier service / agency. The complainant had proved satisfactorily that there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 failed to deliver the consignment to the addressee. The opposite party No. 1 to 3 though appeared before this fora through advocate they have not put up their defence in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. The case and the facts stated by the complainant have gone unchallenged. There is no defence on behalf of the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 4 though served with notice has not chosen to appear before this fora. Therefore, the case put up by the complainant shall have to be accepted as true and correct. The opposite parties for the best reasons known to them have not submitted their defence version and they have not participated in the proceeding. It appears that opposite parties have no defence to make. That is why they have failed to participate in the proceeding. The complainant has clearly established the fact that the consignment entrusted to the professional couriers had not been reached to the Federal Bank Ltd. Therefore, the complainant has been put into loss due to the deficiency in service. The complainant had sent material worth Rs. 26,096/- and for this loss the opposite parties are responsible. Therefore, the opposite parties shall be directed to make good this loss. The complainant has prayed for compensation. There is no evidence or proper proof as to how the complainant has put into mental agony and harassment. A direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 26,029/- with 9% interest p.a. will meet the ends of justice. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 26,029/- to the complainant along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till payment / realization.<br /> 8. The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order within four weeks from the date of this order.<br /> 9. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present litigation.<br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />