Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/215

M/S TRACKON COURIERS PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAIJU K CHACKO - Opp.Party(s)

NARAYAN R

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.215/2015

 JUDGMENT DATED : 20.11.2017

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.22/14 on the file of CDRF,  Palakkad, order dated : 14.01.2015)

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN          : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANTS/ OPPOSITE PARTIES

1.  M/S Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd, No.11/365, MAK Building, Kannara Street, Palakkad Rep by its Regional Manager P.V.Bipin
2. The Regional Manager, M/S Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd,       

APRA 11 LFC Road, Pottakuzhy, North Kaloor,

•  

 

                             By advocate Sri.Roy Varghese     

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

      Shaiju K.Chacko, S/o C.V.Sosamma, Devi Nagar,    Noorani P.O, Palakkad District. Pin-678 004

 

JUDGMENT­

JUSTICE SHRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

Opposite parties in C.C 22/14 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for short”district forum”, Palakkad have filed this appeal challenging  the Order of  the forum directing them to pay a sum of Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty five with compensation of Rupees Five thousand and cost of Rupees One thousand to complainant.  Aggrieved they have preferred this appeal.

2.Respondent/complainant alleging deficiency of service by  opposite parties laid the complaint  seeking compensation of Rupees one lakh with a sum of Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty five  towards the price of locks which he had purchased and, later, transported through opposite parties for replacement.  Complainant alleged that he had purchased godrej locks for Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty five from an authorized agency and finding them defective through that agency transported them opposite parties to the manufacturer for replacement.  The consignment  sent was lost in transit by the negligence of opposite parties was his case to claim compensation with price of the locks purchased.

3.  Opposite parties filed a version resisting the claim contending among others that the complaint was barred by law as no notice under the Carriers Act was issued within the time prescribed.  They also disputed and challenged the claim of complainant contending that there was no privity of contract between the carrier and complainant.  The consignment was not insured and its value was not declared were  other contentions advanced to contend that their liability is limited to Rupees One hundred if at all the claim of complainant is found having merit.

4.  Complainant examined one witness on his side as PW.1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A5.  For the opposite party no oral evidence was tendered and B1 alone was exhibited.

5.  Appreciating the materials tendered and hearing the counsel on both sides the forum below upheld  the claim of complainant and directed opposite parties to pay the price of locks with compensation and costs as indicated.

6.  In the appeal notice was given to complainant, but after acceptance of notice he elected to remain absent.

7.  We heard the counsel for appellants and perused the records.  Learned counsel for appellants contended that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and  appellants and  the consignment was handed over by agency for transportation to the manufacturer.  Complainant cannot claim compensation imputing deficiency of service against   appellants is the submission of  counsel.  Compensation awarded by forum below is excessive is the further submission of the counsel apart from canvassing the other grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal to impeach the Order.

8.  Perusing the records with reference to the submissions made by counsel we do not find any merit in the challenges canvassed  to assail the Order of the forum.  Assuming that the consignment was collected from agency/dealer without the intervention of  complainant still he was the owner of goods purchased from agency and as such he had every right to get the defective locks replaced from the manufacturer.  The agency was acting only as an agent of the complainant in facilitating  replacement of defective locks, which it was bound to perform.  So much so there is no merit in the contention canvassed that there was no privity of contract between  the complainant and  carrier. We find that the loss of goods during transportation is not disputed by opposite party.  They have no explanation for the loss  other than that  in view of delay in raising complaint no effective steps could be taken to retrace the goods.  That is only a lame execuse and that will not  exhonerate them from the liability to compensate the complainant for loss of his goods transported through them.  Lower forum has only ordered for refund of value of goods with compensation of Rupees Five thousand with cost of Rupees One thousand .  By no stretch of imagination the sum awarded can be  considered excessive and unreasonable. We find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed, but,  without any order  of costs as the respondent remain absent.

 

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE                            :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          JUDGMENT IN  A.215/2015

         DATED:20.11.2017