IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> B.A(Hons), LL.B - President<br /> <br /> 2. Smt.M.Mahadevi<br /> M.Sc., M.Ed., -Member<br /> <br /> 3. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 189/06 DATED 21-08-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri Wadi Traders, No.285/2, 2nd Cross, Lakshmivilas Road, Mysore.<br /> Rep. by its Proprietor<br /> Sri K.Ambika Charan Wadi<br /> (By P.T.P, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The R.G.C. Transport Co. (Regd), Fleet Owners & Cargo Movers, H.O. No.A-7, Balaji Complex, Sultanpet, Bangalore.<br /> 2. The R.G.C. Transport Co. (Regd), Fleet Owners & Cargo Movers, No.267 D/1/3-4, Desika Road, Kalpana Lodge Building, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 30-06-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 21-06-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed against both Opposite Parties for non-delivery of a consignment booked under “weigh bill No.6067 dated 28-03-06”. The Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,04,560/- with interest and damages of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice of this complaint was duly served on Opposite Party 2 by RPAD on 06-07-06, but Opposite Party 2 remained absent and he was placed exparte. The notice, which was sent to Opposite Party 1 returned with endorsement as “refused”. Hence, Opposite Party 1 was also placed exparte. Complainant has filed his affidavit and produced documents in support of his contention.<br /> <br /> 3. The facts contended by the complainant, can be summarized in brief as under:-<br /> <br /> Complainant is a trader in seeds etc., having his shop at Mysore. Opposite Party 1 is transporter having his registered office at Bangalore and Opposite Party 2 is the branch office of Opposite Party 1 at Mysore. It is the case of complainant that he has entrusted two boxes (consignment), containing seeds of Chilli (Cshunami) and Tomato to Opposite Party 2 for transportation to Bangalore and for giving “door delivery” to the consignee named Surgro Seeds Research Ltd., Bangalore, the consignment was worth Rs.1,04,560/-. A bill dated 28-03-06 bearing No.494 was prepared and a copy of the same was given to the Opposite Party 1. Opposite Party 1 agreed to deliver such consignment at Bangalore. He charged an amount of Rs.50/- for transportation, and additional amount of Rs.100/- for door delivery. The complainant paid this amount under receipt No.11136 dated 28-03-06. Subsequently, complainant came to know that this consignment was not delivered to the consignee. In spite of repeated requests, O.P1 and 2 have not cared to deliver such consignment to the consignee. Lastly, complainant received a letter from Surgro Seeds Research Ltd., dated 15.05.06 and thereafter, got issued a legal notice dated 29.05.06. This notice was served on Opposite Party 2 on 01-06-06 but no reply was given. Similarly, Opposite Party 1 has refused to receive such legal notice. In spite of service of legal notice, Opposite Parties have not traced the consignment. For the above reasons, the complainant has prayed for allowing this complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant has filed affidavit in support of his complaint. He has produced the original weigh bill No.6067 dated 28.03.06. He has also produced receipt No.11136 for having paid freight and door delivery charges of Rs.150/-. The letter, which was addressed to the consignee and enclosed to the weigh bill is also produced. Complainant ahs produced the original bill of sale No.494 to show the value of consignment. He has also produced original letter received from the consignee for non-delivery of the consignment.<br /> <br /> 5. Point for our considerations is as under:-<br /> <br /> Whether complainant ahs proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, if so to what relief he is entitled?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Affirmative and as per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. It is proved from the documents that Opposite Party 1 is having registered office at Bangalore with branch at Mysore. It is also proved that two boxes containing the seeds of Chilly and Tomato worth Rs.1,04,560/- was delivered to Opposite Party 2 hence, this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. It is also proved from the weigh bill that Opposite Party 2 has received the consignment, which was worth Rs.1,04,560/- and agreed to give door delivery to the consignee by charging Rs.150/-. The payment of consideration is also proved from the document. The burden is on the transporter to prove that the consignment was properly delivered to the consignee. In this case Opposite Party 1 has chosen to “refuse” the legal notice, as well as the notice sent from the Forum. Though notice was served on Opposite Party 2 he remained absent and not contested the matter. Hence, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that Complainant has proved that he has suffered loss of Rs.1,04,560/- due to non-delivery of the consignment. He has also entitled for refund of Rs.150/-, which was paid towards freight charges. Such consignment should have been delivered within a period of 3 or 4 days, as it was agreed to be delivered at the door of consignee. As Opposite Parties have failed to prove this facts, complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01-04-06 till the date of payment. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed against Opposite Party 1 and 2.<br /> 2. Both Opposite Parties jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,04,710/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01-04-06 till the date of payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-. <br /> 3. Opposite Party 1 and 2 are directed to pay the above mentioned amount, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> 4. Send a copy of this order to the both Opposite Parties under C.O.P and give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her/him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open court on this the day 21st August 2006.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Ashok Kumar J.Dhole)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.Mahadevi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />