Rabindra Nath Sahoo filed a consumer case on 05 Feb 2015 against Propitor Gatikintetsu Pvt Ltd in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/59/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Feb 2015.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President.
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray,Lady Member.
Dated the 5th day of February,2015.
C.C.Case No.59 of 2014
Rabindra nath Sahoo, S/O late Bhagaban Sahoo
Vill.-Gopinathpur (Dihasahi)Haripur hata,
P.S.Jajpur sadar, Dist.- Jajpur ……………..Complainant .
(Versus)
2. Branch Manager, GATI KINTETSU PVT LTD,
At/P.O. Panikoili, P.S. Panikoili, Dist. Jajpaur.
…………………………Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri J. Jena, Miss Itishree Mohanty, Advocates.
For the Opp.Parties: Sri B.S.Sahu, B.K.Tripathy, Advocates.
Date of order : 05.02.2015 .
SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, MEMBER.
The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The facts as stated by the petitioner in the complain petition shortly is that Satyajit Sahoo is the son of the petitioner , who is working as Softwire Engineer at Banaglore . The petitioner sent a costly sofaset to his son on 25.01.2013 through the O.P. no.2 by paying Rs.4492/- towards transportation charges. According to petitioner the cost of sofaset though is Rs.30,000/- but the O.P. no.2 valued the cost of sofaset as Rs.20,000/- at the time of receiving the sofaset for transportation. It is alleged by the petitioner that the O.P. no.2 received the sofaset through six packs in good condition / undamaged condition but at the time of delivery at Bangalore it is observed that the sofaset has been damaged for which the petitioner lodged the complaint . As against the complaint though the employee of the O.Ps. assessed the loss amounting to Rs.9,990/- for which the petitioner sent the legal notice on 14.03.2014 and after receipt of the legal notice as per requirement though the petitioner has informed the docket number to the legal Deptt. Of O.P. no.1 but due to non settlement of claim the petitioner finding no other way has filed the present dispute with the prayer to award Rs.50,000/- towards cost of sofaset transport charges, mental agony and litigation charges.
The O.P. no.1 though appeared on 04.09.2014 but subsequently neither filed the written version nor contested the dispute . The O.P no.2 did not choose to contest the case inspite of notice . Hence both the O.Ps. have been set expartee on 09.12.2014.
In view of the above narrated situation we have perused the record along with the documents filed from the side of the petitioner in details. After perusal of the docket bearing No.410621845 issued by O.P. in favour of the petitioner it is cristal clear that the O.P. has received Rs.4492/- towards transporting charge from the petitioner for transporting six packets vide Annexture-1.
Similarly the employees of O.P no.1 though has submitted the observation report bearing No.213953 indicating the total loss Rs.9990/- but the pleader notice dt.14.03. 2014 clearly go to establish that at the time of delivery at Bangalore the articles (Sofaset) were in damaged condition. More over as per observation note of the employee of O.P. no.1 though the cost of the articles indicates Rs.20,000/- but the petitioner has filed a Bill dt.12.11.2012 of Krishna Furnitures and Interior ,Bhubaneswar which indicates that the cost of sofaset is Rs.30,000/- .
Owing to the above factual aspects though it is the liability of O.Ps. to clarify in which way (a) the cost of sofaset was Rs.20,000/- as well as (b) the total loss of damaged sofaset was Rs.9990/- but as observed after appearance on 04.09.2014 the O.Ps. did not file the written version till 09.12.2014. Accordingly we are inclined to hold that the O.Ps. have no defence on merit in the present dispute as per observation of National Commission reported in 2013(1) CPR-507-NC (Mahindra & Mahindra Vrs. Virendra Singh). Accordingly the blame shall be placed at the door of O.Ps. in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2000(1)CPR-106-SC (Nath Bros Vrs. Best Roadways Ltd) wherein it is held by the Appex Court that the O.P no.2 has received the sofaset for transportation as that of an insurer. As such to meet the ends of justice we allow the dispute treating the petitioner’s statement of the complaint petition as uncontroverted as per observation of Odisha State Commission reported in 2003-CLT-Vol-96-page-15-Odisha.
O R D E R
In the net result the dispute is allowed against the O.Ps. . The O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.30,000/-( thirty thousand) towards cost of the sofaset along with Rs.5,000/- ( five thousand) as compensation within one month after receipt of the order, failing which the above awarded amount will carry 9% interest from the date of filing the dispute till its realisation. No cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5th day of February ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Pitabas Mohanty)
Member.
(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar) Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
President
(Shri Pitabas Mohanty)
(Miss Smita Ray) Member.
Lady Member.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.