| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 11 of 2016 Ali Hussain Barbhuiya , ……………………………………….………… Complainant. -V/S- 1. Shiv Shakti Carrier Solapara Road, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati. O.P . Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Mr Taher Islam Talukdar, Advocate for the Complainant. Sri Rajib Das, Advocate for the O.P. Date of Evidence……………………….. 19-11-2016, 02-02-2017 Date of written argument……………… 27-06-2017 Date of judgment………………………. 05-12-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - This Complaint brought U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Shiv Shakti Carrier for award of realization of Rs.31,105/- the cost of various branded mobile phones and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service etc.
- He brought the case with the following facts:-
He is running a proprietary firm of selling of Mobile set the name and Style of his retail outlet is Mobile Link. Accordingly, on 08/09/2015 M/S D.K. Enterprise, Guwahati booked a consignment of Mobile Sets worth Rs.31,105 with the O.P. Shiv Shakti Carrier Service vide receipt no.2681. But the O.P. failed to deliver the same to the Complainant. - The O.P. on receipt of the Notice of this District Forum, submitted W/S. In its W/S admitted the fact that M/S D.K. Enterprise booked a consignment addressee to the Complainant but the said consignment was book at the risk of the Complainant because it was not insured and contains of the packets was not disclosed. However, at present where about the booked packet is not disclosed by the O.P.
- During hearing the Complainant disposed on oath and exhibited consignment acknowledgement as Ext. 1 and mobile bill as Ext. 1(I). The O.P. also examined Sri. Rabin Das, the proprietor of the O.P. firm. He also exhibited consignment note vide Ext.A and other documents.
- The O.P. submitted written argument at the end of the evidence but the Complainant has neither submitted written argument not argued the case orally.
- In this case the fact of booking a packet by the M/S D.K Enterprise, Guwahati with the carrier of the O.P. to deliver to the Complainant is not denied but the O.P. took plea that the packet was not insured and value as well as description of article contained in the packet were not disclosed. For which as per the O.P. the claimant is not entitled any relief.
- In this case it is a fact in view of evidence on record and Ext.1 and Ext.A that a packet was booked with the O.P. to deliver to the Complainant. The Complainant also deposed on oath that he did not received that packet from the O.P. The O.P. also did not disclose any fact to conclude that the packet was delivered. Where the said packet is available. It is also not disclosed by the O.P. Rather O.P. took a plea that the packet was not insured and description of Article and value of article contained in the packet were not disclosed. On the other hand the Complainant deposed that the packet contained various branded mobile set worth Rs.31,105/-. To support that fact he exhibited a copy of bill and consignment note.
- The O.P. did not challenge the above documents. That is why, we have believed the plea of the Complainant that the packet of consignment contains mobile sets of worth Rs.31,105/-.
- As the O.P. accepted the consignment, so impliedly or expressly took risk to carry the packet and it is the statutory duty of the O.P. to deliver the packet to the addressee. But the O.P. though took carrying charge in view of Ext. 1 and Ext.A of Rs.80/- but failed to discharge duty properly. However, question of insurance of the consignment packet is not at all playing any vital role to absolve the O.P. from liability. Of course, to compensate the monetary loss or minimise the mental agony of a consumer in the event of damaging or losing of any article in transit may enter into a contract of Insurance with a 3rd party but in no way the O.P. carrier firm compel the Complainant to enter into Insurance contract.
- Hence, in our considered view without going to the detail discussion regarding object, terms and condition as well as rates of Insurance. We are of opinion that due to non-delivery of the consignment packet to the Complainant, the O.P, the carrier agency has committed deficiency of service. So, the O.P. is liable to pay the value of article of Rs.31,105/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceeding of Rs.1,000/-
- Therefore, the O.P. is directed to pay the above amount within 45 days from today. In default the awarded amount will fetch interest at rate of 10% per annum from today till realization of full. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 5th day of December, 2017.
| |
