BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER 

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 279/2017 Filed on 18/07/2017

ORDER DATED: 19/10/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant in the course of its business wished to sell 4 units of saris having an aggregate value of Rs.48,400/- to Kalaivizhi, Cudallore, Tamilnadu.  The complainant delivered the said goods to the opposite party on the 2^nd day of May 2017 for transport and delivery to consignee. The complainant has declared the value and description of goods and had informed these facts to the opposite party.  The opposite party was aware of the quantity and quality of the goods to be delivered and that is to be delivered to the consignee forthwith.  The opposite party issued receipt no.1284285 dated 2^nd May 2017 upon taking delivery of goods from the complainant.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.240/- as consideration to the opposite party for transport and delivery of goods.  The complainant and the consignee both anticipated delivery of goods within two or three days from the date of booking.  Since the goods were not delivered to the consignee even after the period expired, the consignee complained to the complainant that the goods have not been delivered.  The complainant got in touch with the local office of the opposite party and inquired as to the reason for the delay.  The opposite party was requested to ensure that the goods are promptly delivered to the consignee.  Even after ten days from the date of such instructions, the consignee reported that the goods were not delivered.  The consignee was constantly in touch with the complainant because of the urgency as the goods were for sale from the consignee’s premises.  On the 12^th of May 2017, the complainant submitted a letter to the Manager at the local office of the opposite party stating all facts.  Even then, no action seemed to have been initiated by the local office.  On the 17^th of May 2017, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Area Office of the opposite party.  The opposite party did not reply to these letter/mails.  The complainant has therefore lost the goods entrusted to the opposite party for transport to the named consignee.  The complainant has suffered loss of esteem and reliability in the eyes of the consignee and similar customers because of the non-delivery of the promised goods.  The entire loss and injury sustained by the complainant is directly attributable to the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.          

After accepting the notice opposite parties were not present and not filed version.  Opposite parties were set ex parte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.A1 to A4 marked.   

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:-  We perused relevant documents on records.  Ext.P1 is the true copy of the sale bill for an amount of Rs.48,,000/-.  Ext.P2 is the receipt dated 02/05/2017 issued by opposite party.  Ext.P3 is the true copy of letter dated 12/05/2017 issued by complainant to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P4 is the copy of e-mail sent by complaint.  The complainant stated that the value of goods sent to opposite parties of Rs.48,400/-.  It is evident from Ext.A2 that the goods were taken delivery by opposite parties for onward transport and final delivery to the consignee.  The delivery of the goods never happened.  According to the complainant till date the opposite parties had not given a proper explanation as to why the goods could not have been delivered.  The bounden duty of the opposite parties to ensure that the goods entrusted with them are properly transported and delivered to the concerned addressee without any delay.  The complainant has suffered loss of esteem and reliability in the eyes of the consignee and similar customer because of the non delivery of the promised goods.

The opposite parties had not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.  In view of the above discussions we find that the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.

In the result complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 48,400/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only) as the value of the goods and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,500/-  (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.            

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of October,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 279/2017

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

PRESIDENT