Bihar

Patna

CC/01/2011

Shankar Prasad, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saurab tekriwal, - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
PATNA, BIHAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/01/2011
( Date of Filing : 03 Jan 2011 )
 
1. Shankar Prasad,
S/o- Sri Ramekbal Sah, Prop. of Janta Hand Loom Store Bailey Road Raja Bazar, Ps- Hawaiadda, P.O- B.V. Collage patna-14
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Saurab tekriwal,
Prop. of Azad transport Co. Pvt. Ltd, Bansal Tower B. Bhatacharya Road patna,
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 23 Jun 2015
Final Order / Judgement

Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                President

                    (2)      Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

                   

Date of Order : 23.06.2015

                    Sri Nisha Nath Ojha

  1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-
  1. To award Rs. 26,980/- ( Rs. Twenty Six Thousand nine Hundred and Eighty only ) @ 18% interest per annum from the date of filing of this case till full payment.
  1. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-
  1. The complainant is doing business in the name and style as JANTA HANDLOOM STORE situated at Bailey Road, Raja Bazar, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. – Hawai Adda, District – Patna for his livelihood and his family members.
  2. The complainant purchased cloth 57/2 – 1870 khadi 453= 40 and 18-450=70 mitres and booked on 02.09.2009 thorugh transport of opposite party by builty no. 173=20047 LOT /PKG. 2.2 weight 220 kg from 173- Meerut which was delivered in godown w*3.50+BC=10+CTH. = 106 as SL – No. – 0290519 on 21.09.2009through the branch office of opposite party.
  3. When the complainant went for taking delivery of the goods the opposite party took full charge and delivered only one goods and he gave receipt for that one only, and BIL J H O 2 L 8081 is dues, which amounts of Rs. 12,566/-( Rs. Twelve thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six only ) and same is still not delivered and complainant is in great loss due to negligence of opposite party. One of the employee namely Mahendra Jee mentioned on the back side of the builty that MAL CHORI HO GAYA ( GOODS HAVE BEEN STOLEN ).
  4. The complainant visited several times but the opposite party always avoided and in this way they have not delivered the said goods. They have sold the goods of the complainant and they have put the  complainant in great loss knowing and deliberately.
  5. The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party no. 1 but the same was returned with endorsement that not found.
  6. The cause of action for this complaint for the first time arose on 02.09.2009 the date on which the goods were booked thereafter on 21.09.2009 the date on which transportation charge of the goods was paid in the office of opposite party, and taken delivery of only one goods on 23.09.2009 from the godown of opposite party at Bansal Tower, B. Bhatacharya Road, Patna.
  1. The Opposite Party in his written statement cum Show Cause has submitted are as follows :-
  1. The Builty No. 173=20047LOT/PKG2/2 dated 02.09.2009 two consignment were booked by the complainant from Meerut to Patna
  2. Out of two consignments, one consignment 18-450=70 metre was delivered to the complainant on 23.09.2009, which is admitted by the complainant himself.
  3. The second consignment 57/2-1870 khadi 453=40 metre costing              Rs. 12,015/- ( Rs. Twelve thousand Fifteen only ) could not be delivered due to loss in transit.
  4. The complainant himself calculated the total loss including transportation charge to the rune of Rs. 12,566/- ( Rs. Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six only ) for non delivery of second consignment. The complainant himself calculated this loss and annexed it with complaint petition.
  5. The opposite party has always been ready to pay the total loss of                 Rs. 12,566/- ( Rs. Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six only ) to the complainant but in 2009 since one of the Director of the Company namely, Sri Santosh Kumar Tekriwal was murdered in broad day light, therefore there was some delay in setting the claim of the complainant and in the meantime the complainant without realizing the difficulty of the opposite party filed this case.
  6. The opposite party even today is prepared to pay the entire loss of the Rs. 12,566/- ( Rs. Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six only ) to the complainant.

We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

It is the case of the complainant that out of two consignments booked from Transport Company of the opposite party only one consignment ( i.e. cloth ) was delivered to the complainant on 23.09.2009 but other consignment ( cloth ) worth of Rs. 12,566/- ( twelve thousand five hundred sixty six only ) could not be delivered till now. He has further asserted that the employee of the opposite party informed him vide annexure – A that the consignment had been stolen.

The opposite party has filed written statement accepting the fact that one consignment could not be delivered to the complainant because one of the director had been murdered. In support of the aforesaid fact photocopy of death certificate as well as F.I.R. bearing Kadam Kuan case no. 166/09 dated 12.06.2009 have been annexed with the written statement. However from perusal of Para Nos. 5 and 6 it is clear that the opposite party is and has been ready to pay Rs. 12,566/- ( twelve thousand five hundred sixty six only ) i.e. actual price of lost consignment to the complainant. We are very much impressed with the honest admission of the opposite party. However, it is crystal clear from Para 5 of the complaint petition that complainant has paid Rs. 924/- to the opposite party for the transportation of the consignment. As the consignment has not been delivered to the complainant, hence the opposite party is entitled to pay half of the transportation cost to the complainant i.e. Rs. 462/- ( Rs. Four Hundred Sixty Two only ) besides some litigation cost. We do not think to award interest because opposite party has given the valid reason for non - delivery of consignment of i.e. murder of its one of director. However we think it proper to direct the opposite party to pay some amount by way of litigation cost as well for harassment to the complainant.

Accordingly, We direct the opposite party to payRs. 12,566/- ( twelve thousand five hundred sixty six only ) + 462/- ( Rs. Four Hundred Sixty Two only ) total 13,028/- ( Rs. Thirteen Thousand and Twenty Eight only ) to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order /certified copy of this order failing which the aforesaid amount ofRs. 13,028/- ( Rs. Thirteen Thousand and Twenty Eight only ) will be paid to the complainant with interest @ of 12% annually till its final payment.

The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,000/- ( Rs. Four Thousand only ) as composite charge for compensation and litigation costs.

Thus this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.

              

                                    Member                                                                             President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.