KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM F.A. No.234/09JUDGMENT DATED : 30.01.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The General Manager, Kerala Roadways(P) Limited, : APPELLANTS Corporate Office, K.R.S.Plaza, 1st Floor, 1766-A, I.G.Road, Calicut – 673 001. 2. The Regional Manager, K.R.S. Office, Kazisyed, Kaisyed Street, Shop No.44, Masjid Bandar, Mumbai. 3. Assis, Manager, K.R.S.Parcel Service, Adimali Branch, Adimali.P.O., (Pullariyil House, Adimali.P.O.) (By Adv.Sri.K.G.Mohandas Pai & Associates) Vs Roy @ Royson, : RESPONDENT S/o.Manuel, Anikuzhikkattil Textitles, Kunchithanny.P.O., Bisonvalley Village, Idukki District. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in the file of O.P.No. 484/96 dated 29.11.2008. In short the petitioner is engaged in textile business at Kunchithanni. On 03.07.2007, the petitioner purchased some textile items from Bombay for his Onam sale. The 2nd opposite party received the said items as 3 bundles from the petitioner with a condition to deliver it at KRS Office, Adimali, the 3rd opposite party’s office in a safe condition within 15 days and charged Rs.1,540/- for the same. The complainant paid the same and Rs.3,000/- for clearing the tax. But the opposite parties failed to deliver the said bundles as agreed. After repeated demands, on23.08.2007, the 3rd opposite party delivered two bundles at Adimali office and the 3rd opposite party demanded the original token issued by the 2nd opposite party to the petitioner. The petitioner surrendered the original token to the 3rd opposite party. While surrendering the said original token to the 3rd opposite party, he issued a receipt to the petitioner on behalf of that. After repeated demands and personal contacts, the opposite parties are in a envasive stand regarding the third bundled which contains textile items worth Rs.40,739/-. The opposite party failed to deliver the third bundle to the complainant. Finally on 29.11.2007, the petitioner approached the 3rd opposite party to collect the third bundle. The 3rd opposite party demanded Rs.100/- as additional service charges. On scrutiny, it was also noticed that all the textile items were damaged by moisture and water. Damages were caused only by the mishandling and negligence due to keeping it in an unsafe condition. It is caused by the willful negligence from the part of the opposite party. The said damages were happened only due to the delay in delivery. So the petition is filed for getting damages as Rs.4,789/- and compensation under various heads. On the side of the complainant the complainant who examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 respectively. On the side of the opposite side DW1 examined and no document was produced. The Forum below found that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and opposite party directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.200/- for the cost of the complaint within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default. This appeal prefers from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal come before this Commission for final hearing, the Counsel for the Appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the lower Forum failed to find that the persons who seeks equity should do equity and approach the court with clean hands. Since the complainant failed to furnish bills/ value of goods on the guise that the items are not taxable, the delay was caused as the sales tax squad caught the goods and opposite party has also suffered hardship, due to misplacement and delay. He further argued that the goods were delivered in good condition and taken delivery by him on paying tax. Complainant refused to take delivery of third bundle initially but after a lapse of few months after filing complaint filed if delivered. The complaint was filed for claiming value of entire goods as per bill. The bill is fabricated as evident on the face itself. Forum failed to appreciate this facts and evidence. He further submitted that the order is illegal and baseless, laconic, mechanical and unsuitable and compensation granted is excessive, imaginary and without nexus to reality. This appellant prays for set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. There is no evidence to connect his case and also said that as per the opposite party, the tax amount paid for complainants bundle is Rs.35,000/-. But the received amount for Rs.6,500/- as per the case of the opposite party and the bundle was missed at Ernakulam. According to the contention of the opposite parties, would some payment was done at Thalassery. If the Commercial tax department detected the bundles contended that there are three. The opposite party received only two bundles. In brief one bundle was in tax department worth of Rs.5000/-. But the bundle was not open by them. This commission admitted that the version of DW1 is not believable. The delay for delivery till for, one bundle may be missed in any other reason. The explanation of the opposite party is not legally acceptable. There is a season of Onam it caused a loss of business and huge mental suffering to the complainant. At that time of the delivery of the article of bundle were fully wet with moisture. This commission is having a view that a parcel agent accepted all the consignment (parcel bundles) without scanning and verification of tax records etc. The appellant /opposite party is not having a case that they verified all the documents and goods at the time of accepting the bundles. In the circumstance we are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. The order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with law and evidence. It is legally sustainable. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are direct to suffer their own respective costs. The points of appeal answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICEK.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. |
