JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Noorunisa Naweeda against the Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and for to direct them to refund an amount of Rs. 60/- with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, on 10-02-2009 complainant had gone to the office of Opposite No.2 to take delivery of the consignment booked at Bangalore vide Way Bill No. 300777928 dt. 06-02-09. Opposite No.2 demanded her to pay an amount of Rs. 60/- for to give delivery of the said consignment, she resisted the illegal demand of Opposite No.2. But Opposite No-2 refused to give delivery of the said consignment, ultimately she paid an amount of Rs. 60/- and thereafter she issued legal notice for deficiency in service, and filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by admitting the presence of this complainant in office of Opposite No.2 to take delivery of the said consignment on the said and time. Opposite No-2 demanded to make payment of Rs. 60/- to the complainant for to meet out the miscellaneous expenditure as well as un-loading charges. This is in accordance with the procedure of the Opposite No.2, there was no deficiency in service on their part and denied all other allegations made by this complainant and accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint with heavy cost. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that on 10-02-09 she approached Opposite No-2 for to take delivery of paid consignment pertaining to the Way Bill No. 300777928 dt. 06-02-09 but Opposite No-2 illegally collected a sum of Rs. 60/- from her and to give delivery of the paid consignment even after her protest and thereby Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. Documents at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-4 are marked. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not adduced either affidavit-evidence or documentary evidence. 7 In the instant case, there is no dispute as regards to the presence of complainant in the Respondents Office on 10-02-09 at the said time for to take delivery of the consignment pertaining to Way Bill No. 300777928 dt. 06-02-09. It is further undisputed fact that the Opposite No-2 has collected a sum of Rs. 60/- from the complainant, even through the said consignment was paid consignment from the booking office at Bangalore. 8. In the light of these two admitted facts, now short point for our consideration is whether the amount of Rs. 60/- charged by the Opposite No-2 for to give delivery of the paid consignment to the complainant is proper or not. If it is proper, then the complainant has no case against the Respondents. If it is no then the complainant has got a case against the Respondents. To decide these undisputed facts, the material documentary evidences before us are Ex.P-1 which is consignees office copy of boking. Ex.P-2 is the receipt issued by the Opposite No-2 for collection of Rs. 60/- at the time of delivery from the complainant. 9. On perusal of Ex.P-1, it discloses that Hamali charges of Rs. 35/- was paid by the consignor at the time of booking consignment in Bangalore, Rs. 15 ST charges also paid, totally he paid Rs. 1,620/-, now we have to appreciate Ex.P-2 which is the receipt passed by this Opposite No-2 for having receipt of Rs. 60/- from the complainant. As per Ex.P-2 Opposite No-2 charged Rs. 10/- towards miscellaneous charge and Rs. 50/- towards Hamali charge. 10. The learned advocate for opposite No-2 vehemently argued before us that even though paid consignment received by Opposite No-2 office, then the person who is competent to take delivery shall pay these charges to Opposite No-2. On the other hand, the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, when paid up consignment received by the persons, they need not pay anything to Respondent No-2 at the time of taking the paid up consignment. He shall deliver paid up consignment with free of cost. It is for the complainant to make her own arrangements for to transport articles to her resident. 11. In the light of submissions made on both sides and also in the light of the documentary evidences Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2, we are of the view that there is no meaning in saying that Opposite No-2 can charge an amount of Rs. 10/- as a miscellaneous charge and Rs. 50/- as a Hamali charge, it is a paid up consignment, then the duty of the Opposite No-2 is to give delivery of the said consignment to the complainant with free of cost. The complainant has to look after transportation of those articles to her resident. Charging an amount of Rs. 50/- as a Hamali charge and charging an amount of Rs. 10/- as a miscellaneous charge before giving delivery of the paid consignment to the complainant is illegal, it amounts to extraction of money from customers without any kind of agreement to that effect. Hence it is nothing but deficiency in their services towards complainant, accordingly we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 in affirmative. 12. As regards to reliefs claimed by the complainant as noted her complaint, first relief is for to award an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and also for to refund an amount of Rs. 60/- which is the amount illegally collected from her with cost of this litigation. 13. As already discussed above, there is deficiency in service on the part of these Respondents towards complainant for illegally collecting an amount of Rs. 60/- for to give delivery of the said paid up consignment, as such the complainant is entitled for to recover the said amount of Rs. 60/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. We have noticed that the deficiency in service on the part of these Respondents towards complainant, as such the complainant is entitled for to recover an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally under the head of deficiency in service. 14. As regards to the cost of the litigation is concerned, complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Hence complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 2,060/- from Respondents jointly and severally, accordingly we answered Point No. 1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 2,060/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. One month time is given to the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to make the above said payment to the complainant. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 15-09-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
