Date of Filing: 19/10/2011

        Date of Order: 05/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  5^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1917 OF 2011

Sri.H.V. Suresh Kumar,

No.7/173, 14^th A Cross,

Vayalikaval, Bangalore-560 003.

Presently at No.16, Finchaven Avenue,

Keysborough-3173, Victoria, Australia.

(Rep. by Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate)                                    ….  Complainant.

V/s

The Manager,

M/s. Overseas Express,

No.58, 2^nd Lane, 3^rd Cross,

Lalbhagh Road, Behind Garuda

Maruthi Show Room, Bangalore-560 027.

(Rep. by Sri.T.N.Viswanatha, Advocate)                              …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to return two silk sarees and one pair Nike Shoe and to pay Rs.1,05,000/-, are necessary:-

On 17.01.2011 while the complainant had to go back to Australia.  There was excess baggage weighing 39.17 kgs.  He entrusted it to the opposite party for transporting it to Australia and paid necessary charges.  On 25.01.2011 the consignment was received by the complainant and on checking he found two silk sarees worth Rs.7,000/- and Rs.6,750/- and a pair of Nike Shoe worth Rs.3,600/- was missing.  He informed it to the representative of the opposite party Sri.Raghavendra and Vijay who stated that, they will trace and deliver the goods.  As it has not been delivered, a notice was issued to the opposite party on 17.06.2011.  As it has not been complied with, this complaint is filed.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite party is:-

          Admittedly the opposite party is in Australia.  But the complaint is filed in Bangalore on 15.10.2011.  The complaint is not verified at Bangalore or present at Bangalore.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable.  Delivering of 39.17 Kgs for transportation to Australia by the complainant to the opposite party on 17.01.2011 is admitted.  It has been delivered to him on 25.01.2011.  There is no shortage of any goods.  Rest of the allegations are denied as false.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have stated that their respective pleadings and documents may be read as their evidence.  Hence arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has entrusted certain house hold goods to the opposite party on 17.01.2011 to be transported to Australia and it was carried to Australia and it was delivered to the complainant at Australia.  The complainant at Para-3 of the complaint has stated thus:-

The complainant after properly packing the goods, which consisted of all the household goods, the total weight of which was 39.17 Kgs., entrusted the same to the opposite party for transportation to Australia and also paid the necessary fright charges to them.

That means the complainant had properly packed the goods which was weighing 39.17 kgs and it was entrusted to the opposite party for transportation.  The complainant never stated that the baggage was damaged while he received it at Australia nor he has stated that the weight of the baggage that was delivered to him back at Australia was not 39.17 kgs or it was less.  When that is the case how can we say the opposite party has not delivered two sarees and one pair of shoes. 

7.       Further there is no material to show that two silk sarees and one pair of shoes were kept in the baggage and it was delivered to the opposite party for transportation.  There is no document to show that the complainant had these two silk sarees and one pair of Nike Shoes of a particular size and of a particular value.  When that is the case how can it be said that the opposite party has short delivered the goods.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:- 

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 5^th Day of December 2011)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT