West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/08/272

Mr. (Retd. Col.) Amitava Kundu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Super Fast Carrier - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2009

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/08/272
( Date of Filing : 13 Aug 2008 )
 
1. Mr. (Retd. Col.) Amitava Kundu
S/o Late S. N. Kundu, 47B, Puddapukur Road, Kolkata - 700020. And at 227, A. J. C,. Bose Road, 19/263, Turf View, 249, Acharay Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata - 700022.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Super Fast Carrier
WZ-258/5, Nangal Raya, New Delhi - 110046.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Oct 2009
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.   1 0    Dated 2 9 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 9 .

 

               Complainant Shri Amitava Kundu by filing this case has prayed for compensation of Rs. 3 lac payable by the O.P. M/s. Super Fast Carriers for his mental loss and agony, and for any other relief as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

 

            The specific allegation of the Complainant is that he is the owner of one Santro car bearing Registration No. WB-025-0430 and he booked for transportation of his car with the O.P. from New Delhi to his residential address at 19/263 Turf View, 249, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-700 022 on 30.04.2008, and the transportation cost was Rs. 15,830.00 which was paid by him. When he enquired of his car, the O.P. informed that car met with an accident at Unch, Janpat Vadodi (UP), G. T. Road on 08.05.2008 on the way to Kolkata and the car was badly damaged and that it was beyond repair. Diary was lodged on 16.05.2008 and the O.P. had to send the car by carrier. The Complainant was highly shocked at it. The Complainant lodged diary at Hastings P.S., Kolkata after receiving the news of accident from Unch P.S. on 12.05.2008 and according to the diary of the driver the car was handed over to him on 05.05.2008 and he met with an accident on 08.05.2008. But the O.P. on enquiry by the Complainant gave the message that the car met with an accident due to overturning of the transport carrier on 08.05.2008. So the suppression of fact and sending the car by carrier is a gross negligence on the part of the O.P. for his malafide design of mind and as such the Complainant has filed this case  with the aforesaid prayer.

 

Decision with reasons

            In view of the fact of the case as mentioned above the allegation of the Complainant is two-fold – (1) suppression of fact and (2) negligence of service. It appears on perusal of the record that the case was admitted for hearing on 19.08.2008, notices were served but the O.P. did not appear before the Forum and it appears from the Order No. 4 dated 11.11.2008that notice was delivered to the O.P. on 21.08.2008. But the O.P. did not appear. So the case is heard exparte. Annexure-A shows that the Complainant Amitava Kundu gave Rs. 15,330.00 to the O.P. on  30.04.2008 as freight charge in cash for transportation of his car from New Delhi to Kolkata, Annexure-A-1 is the consignee copy dated 30.04.2008 mentioning therein the registration number of the car being WB-025-0430 from New Delhi to Kolkata. Annexure-B is a letter written in Hindi speaking about the accident of the car on 08.05.2008 Annexure-B2 is the copy of FIR showing that date of information to the Police is 12.05.2008 and the date of GD entry is also 12.05.2008. It is not understood that when the accident according to Exhibit-B happened on 08.05.2008 why the G.D. entry was made at an inordinate delay of 4 days. It is also mentioned in the letter addressed to the O.P. by the Complainant wherein it is mentioned that following the information from the diary it is found that driver drove the Santro car on 05.05.2008 from New Delhi by road for delivering it to the house of the Complainant in Kolkata and subsequently the car was sent by carrier. We have also perused the Certificate of Insurance of the car, Annexure-D & E.

 

            We have also perused the Affidavit of Examination in-Chief of the Complainant and the contents of the same are corroborated by the contents of the Petition of Complaint. It also appears from his evidence and the contents of the pleadings that the O.P. gave a wrong information to the effect that the accident was caused by turning over of the carrier of the car and it also shows malafide intention of the O.P. of giving such wrong and misleading information. Therefore, considering the evidence on record we are of the candid opinion that there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the Complainant and he is accordingly entitled to get relief as ordered hereunder.

 

            In view of this position we also find gross negligence and deficiency of service onf the part of the O.P..

 

            Hence

                   ordered

            that the Petition of Complaint is allowed exparte. The Complainant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000.00 and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000.00. The O.P. is directed to pay grand total of Rs. 33,000.00 positively within 30 days from the communication of this Order failing which it will carry interest @ 10% per annum till full realization giving liberty to the Complainant to realize his claim by due process of law. Fees paid are correct. Supply copy to the Complainant on payment of prescribed fees.

 

 

 

        ____________                                                    ____________

          MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.