Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1192/2010

M/s Speckt Vision Total Eye Care - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/sOn Dot Carrior and Cargo Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ramchandar Sharam

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 1192/2010

 

M/s. Specto Vision, Total Eye Care, Shop no.378 Kataria Bhawan, M.I.Road, Jaipur through Manager Vinod Sharma

Vs.

M/s. On dot Courier & Cargo Ltd. Gali no.3 Plot No.90, Near Vidhayakpuri Thana, Gopalbari, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 22.4.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali -Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal- Member

 

Mr. R.C.Sharma counsel for the appellant

None present for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Jaipur ^Ist Jaipur dated 23.3.2010 by which the complaint was partially allowed.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant filed a complaint alleging that on 25.3.2008 vide receipt no. 299444411, on 18.3.2008 vide receipt no. 299448839 and on 10.5.2008 vide receipt no. 195595004 he had sent three parcels to Bhiwadi through respondents who are courier and cargo company. The complainant alleged that the parcel sent on 25.3.2008 and 18.3.2008 did not reach Bhiwadi and parcel sent on 10.5.2008 reached there with short delivery. The complainant filed a complaint and the respondents admitted to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- as compensation to the complainant while the complainant alleged that the value of the goods sent was Rs. 27022/-. The learned DCF came to the conclusion that since the complainant had not declared the value of each parcel at the time of its dispatch, therefore, it allowed only Rs.7500/- as compensation.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the record wherein invoices have been placed on record, copies of which were enclosed with the courier sent to the respondent. He has also argued that what was the basis of

3

 

awarding Rs.7500/- is not disclosed in the judgment while two parcels were completely missing and third parcel was short delivered.

 

We have heard the argument of the learned counsel. We are of the view that the complainant had declared the value of the parcel at the time of dispatch and enclosed the copy of the invoice and we find no basis on which the loss of Rs.7500/- was arrived at by the respondent and accepted by the learned DCF. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

 

The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and we direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.27022/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. Rest of the order of the learned DCF is maintained. Order be complied within one month.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm