This is a complaint made by one Smt. Kaushiki Roy wife of Sri Ashoke Roy residing at 7/49, Bejoygarh Colony, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700032 against Proprietor and Agents of ABC Courier Service of 57, Jadavpur Central Road, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata- 700032 and DHL Express (Inida) Pvt. Ltd. praying for a direction upon the OPs for payment of Rs.3488/- as difference value between 3 Kg. and 1.5 Kg. and payment of Rs.5,000/- for 30 sweets and 4 Packets of dry food and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.6,000/- .
Facts, in brief, are that Complainant resides at 7/49, Bejoygarh Colony, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700032. Op is the agent of Courier Company. Complainant on 10/3/2015 booked a parcel containing clothing items, children’s toys, dry food and a few over-the counter medicines through ABC Courier Services having its office at 57, Jadavpur Central Road to her son Mr. Shuvo Roy at 83, Potterhill Gardens, Perth PH2 7ED, United Kingdom via DHL Express (India) Ltd. OP No.2 after delivery of the said goods on the above date to the Office of OP No.1 where they were inspected. Complainant was asked to supply the hand written list of contents. The weight of said article was 3Kg. and Complainant paid Rs.6,975/- as tariff of the said article, receipt is enclosed as Annexure ‘A’ . No other document was given by OP No.1 to the Complainant.
Said parcel was received on 12/3/2015 by the son of the Complainant. The consignment was found badly tampered with the food items and medicine missing and the weight of the parcel was found about 1.5 Kg. After that Complainant contacted OP No.1 over telephone and Complainant’s son contacted OP No.2 by e-mail. But Op No.1 refused to take responsibility for tampering of the parcel. Thereafter Complainant visited the office of OP No.1 on 14/3/2015 and requested them to deliver a copy of the Airway Bill generated for the parcel after it was accepted for delivery on 10/3/2015 OP No.1 denied possession of such document and anyhow photocopy of the bill could be procured which is Annexure ‘B’. OP No.2 without wishing to be identified himself offered less than 50% of tariff amount to settle the dispute. But since no settlement could take place Complainant filed this case. OP No.1 filed written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. Further OP has stated that the dispute is between Complainant and OP No.2 and OP No.1 has nothing to do with it.
OP No.2 has also filed written version and denied all the allegations and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons
Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Complainant has also filed supplementary evidence wherein also Complainant has high-lighted the case made out in the complaint petition.
OP No.2 has filed questionnaire against evidence and additional evidence to the Complainant. Complainant has filed brief notes of argument wherein she has asserted the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. OP No.2 has also filed brief written argument.
Main points for determination are as follows:
- Whether the consignment was received in tampered condition ;
- Whether Complainant is entitled to get relief of Rs.3,488/- has a difference in the weight from 3 Kg. to 1.5 Kg. and entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- as cost of sweets and 4 packets of dry food and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.6,000/-.
All the points are taken up together in Annexure ‘A’. Xerox copy of the receipt showing that Complainant booked a consignment and paid Rs.6,975/- , Annexure ‘B’. Copy of invoices which has been signed by Kaushiki Roy but it is blank. Xerox copy of one document is filed showing that consignment was sent, it reveals that the weight of consignment was 1.3 Kg. and it is dated 10/3/2015. Top of the document is mentioned of 1.5 Kg. This reveals that consignment between 1.3 Kg. to 1.5 Kg. was sent on 10/3/2015.
There is no other document to establish that consignment weight was 3 Kg.
In the circumstances, the prayer for payment of Rs.3488/- does not arise.
Now coming on to loss of 30 Sweets and dry foods, it appears that there is no evidence showing that 30 Sweets worth Rs.30 per Sweets was sent and dry foods was also sent. In the circumstances, the claim of Complainant could not be sustained.
On perusal of the respective evidence-on-affidavit it is clear that Complainant has filed this case for no cause of action. Since the claims of Complainant are not sustainable, the question of granting compensation and litigation cost does not arise.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
CC/69/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
