Speed man Express Courier Service V/S Ashima Cotton Mills - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1673

Ashima Cotton Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

Speed man Express Courier Service - Opp.Party(s)

Eshwara bhat

10 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1673

Ashima Cotton Mills						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Speed man Express Courier Service						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 10th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1673/2008 COMPLAINANT M/s. Ashima Cotton Mills, Shop # 113, Dinkson Avenue #15, T.N. Setty Lane, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore 560 053. State: Karnataka, Represented by its Proprietor Anil Salecha. Advocate (I. Ishwara Bhat) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Speedman Express (Regd), Courier Service, # E/119, First Floor, Shri Ghantakaran, Commercial Market, Near New Cloth Market, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad 380 002. State : Gujarat, Represented by its Manager. Advocate (K. Prasanna Shetty) 2. M/s. Skylark Express Courier Service, # 04, 1st Main, 7th Cross, Behind Ramanshree Hotel, Sampangiram Nagar, Bangalore 560 027. State : Karnataka, Represented by its Manager. Advocate (Nishit Kumar Shetty) 3. M/s. Maha Pran Textile, & M/s. Bhansali Fabrics, # 31, Ground Floor, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad 380 002, State : Gujarat, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Subhash Bhansali. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to compensate him by Rs.1,66,430/- and pay another Rs.50,000/- for the loss of business and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: OP.3 has sent a way bill along with commercial invoice worth of Rs.1,66,430/- through OP.1 so as to be delivered to the complainant on 28.02.2008. But somehow OP.1 failed to deliver the said consignment in time. When complainant contacted OP.3 about the non-receipt of the said way bill he got it confirmed that the said consignment is already handed over to the OP.1 long back. Then immediately complainant contacted the OP.1 about the non-delivery of the said consignment by addressing a letter, but there was no positive response. On the other hand it is contended that the said consignment has been delivered to the complainant through OP.2 which is utterly false. Complainant has nothing to do with M/s. Ashima Textiles complainant address is Ashima Cotton Mills. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus caused the legal notice to OP to compensate him, again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.1 has filed the version so also OP.2, OP.3 did not contest the matter. The brief averments as could be seen from the defence set out by the OP.1 is that, complainant has not availed the services of OP.1 as contemplated. The consignment entrusted by OP.3 to them is duly delivered on the complainant through OP.2. The representative of the complainant has made an endorsement and received the said consignment. Due to typographical mistake instead of mentioning Ashima Cotton Mills it is written as Ashima Textiles. Complainant wants to take the undue advantage of the said accidental slip. When the said consignment is delivered to the complainant well in time, he cannot seek for the compensation. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP.1. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. OP.2 filed the version mainly contending that the said consignment which was entrusted to it by OP.1 is delivered to the complainants staff and he acknowledged it. Actually there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this OP.2 nor complainant has availed the services of this OP.2 as contemplated. Under such circumstances complainant cannot seek compensation against OP.2. There is no deficiency in service as alleged. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OPs have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OPs have served the interrogatories and complainant has given the answer. Then the arguments were heard. 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1 and 2? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. The fact that OP.3 sent a way bill along with a commercial invoice worth of Rs.1,66,430/- to the complainant through OP.1 under consignment note No. 0076860 dated 28.02.2008 is not at dispute. Complainant being the beneficiary of the said transaction anticipating that the said consignment will reach him in time. OP.1 has not disputed the receipt of the said consignment for delivery to the complainant. Unfortunately the said consignment was not delivered to the complainant in time. When they contacted the OP.3 on 25.03.2008 it was informed to the complainant that he has already entrusted the said consignment to OP.1 on 28.02.2008. Then complainant contacted the OP.1. To the utter shock of the complainant OP vide letter dated 23.04.2008 informed him that the said consignment is delivered through OP.2 on 04.03.2008 itself. 8. According to OP.1 the said consignment was delivered to Ashima Textiles, Bangalore, but whereas complainant firm is Ashima Cotton Mills. It is specifically stated by the complainant that Ashima Textiles has nothing to do with Ashima Cotton Mills. In addition to that OP.3 entrusted the said consignment to OP.1. Nobody has permitted the OP.1 to re-entrust the said consignment to OP.2. Here we find the negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. OP.2 has contended that the said consignment is delivered on 05.03.2008. Delivery run sheet is produced. Probably the consignment in question is referred to serial No. 24. There is a overwriting about the consignment number and the consignee name is mentioned Ashima Cotton Mills. 9. So these OPs wants to speak against to the contents of their own document. They want to breathe hot and cold. In the defence set out they say that through oversight the said consignment was delivered to Ashima Textiles, it is a typographical mistake. But their delivery run sheet shows it is alleged to have been delivered to Ashima Cotton Mills itself. It is contended that the Clerk of complainant has received the same. Who is that Clerk is not known. Some signature is put on the said delivery run sheet. It is not known to whom it belongs. Complainant has specifically contended that he is a sole Proprietor of his company and he has not engaged the services of any staff. When that is so, the burden lies on the OP to substantiate the actual delivery of the said consignment to the consignee in time. But here we find the OPs have utterly failed to discharge their burden. 10. On the perusal of the delivery run sheet certain consignment notes are rounded up with red ink, but this disputed consignment note is not rounded. It is not known whether actually it is delivered or not. The defence set out by the OP.1 and 2 is self contradictory on good number of material facts, they are not definite about their own stand. For no fault of the complainant, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that there is a proof of deficiency in service. The contention of the OPs that there is no privity of contract and complainant has not availed their services rather does not hold much water because admittedly complainant is the beneficiary of the said transaction. 11. Hence for these reasons we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief though not the actual value mentioned in the so called way bill. If the complainant is so advised, he can very well redress his grievance by filing a separate Civil Suit with regard to the said commercial invoice. In our view the justice will be met by directing each one of these OP.1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony and financial loss suffered by complainant by way of damages along with a litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant as well as the litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- each. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 10th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1673/2008 COMPLAINANT M/s. Ashima Cotton Mills, Shop # 113, Dinkson Avenue #15, T.N. Setty Lane, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore 560 053. State: Karnataka, Represented by its Proprietor Anil Salecha. Advocate (I. Ishwara Bhat) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Speedman Express (Regd), Courier Service, # E/119, First Floor, Shri Ghantakaran, Commercial Market, Near New Cloth Market, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad 380 002. State : Gujarat, Represented by its Manager. Advocate (K. Prasanna Shetty) 2. M/s. Skylark Express Courier Service, # 04, 1st Main, 7th Cross, Behind Ramanshree Hotel, Sampangiram Nagar, Bangalore 560 027. State : Karnataka, Represented by its Manager. Advocate (Nishit Kumar Shetty) 3. M/s. Maha Pran Textile, & M/s. Bhansali Fabrics, # 31, Ground Floor, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad 380 002, State : Gujarat, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Subhash Bhansali. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to compensate him by Rs.1,66,430/- and pay another Rs.50,000/- for the loss of business and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: OP.3 has sent a way bill along with commercial invoice worth of Rs.1,66,430/- through OP.1 so as to be delivered to the complainant on 28.02.2008. But somehow OP.1 failed to deliver the said consignment in time. When complainant contacted OP.3 about the non-receipt of the said way bill he got it confirmed that the said consignment is already handed over to the OP.1 long back. Then immediately complainant contacted the OP.1 about the non-delivery of the said consignment by addressing a letter, but there was no positive response. On the other hand it is contended that the said consignment has been delivered to the complainant through OP.2 which is utterly false. Complainant has nothing to do with M/s. Ashima Textiles complainant address is Ashima Cotton Mills. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus caused the legal notice to OP to compensate him, again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.1 has filed the version so also OP.2, OP.3 did not contest the matter. The brief averments as could be seen from the defence set out by the OP.1 is that, complainant has not availed the services of OP.1 as contemplated. The consignment entrusted by OP.3 to them is duly delivered on the complainant through OP.2. The representative of the complainant has made an endorsement and received the said consignment. Due to typographical mistake instead of mentioning Ashima Cotton Mills it is written as Ashima Textiles. Complainant wants to take the undue advantage of the said accidental slip. When the said consignment is delivered to the complainant well in time, he cannot seek for the compensation. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP.1. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. OP.2 filed the version mainly contending that the said consignment which was entrusted to it by OP.1 is delivered to the complainants staff and he acknowledged it. Actually there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this OP.2 nor complainant has availed the services of this OP.2 as contemplated. Under such circumstances complainant cannot seek compensation against OP.2. There is no deficiency in service as alleged. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OPs have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OPs have served the interrogatories and complainant has given the answer. Then the arguments were heard. 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1 and 2? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. The fact that OP.3 sent a way bill along with a commercial invoice worth of Rs.1,66,430/- to the complainant through OP.1 under consignment note No. 0076860 dated 28.02.2008 is not at dispute. Complainant being the beneficiary of the said transaction anticipating that the said consignment will reach him in time. OP.1 has not disputed the receipt of the said consignment for delivery to the complainant. Unfortunately the said consignment was not delivered to the complainant in time. When they contacted the OP.3 on 25.03.2008 it was informed to the complainant that he has already entrusted the said consignment to OP.1 on 28.02.2008. Then complainant contacted the OP.1. To the utter shock of the complainant OP vide letter dated 23.04.2008 informed him that the said consignment is delivered through OP.2 on 04.03.2008 itself. 8. According to OP.1 the said consignment was delivered to Ashima Textiles, Bangalore, but whereas complainant firm is Ashima Cotton Mills. It is specifically stated by the complainant that Ashima Textiles has nothing to do with Ashima Cotton Mills. In addition to that OP.3 entrusted the said consignment to OP.1. Nobody has permitted the OP.1 to re-entrust the said consignment to OP.2. Here we find the negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. OP.2 has contended that the said consignment is delivered on 05.03.2008. Delivery run sheet is produced. Probably the consignment in question is referred to serial No. 24. There is a overwriting about the consignment number and the consignee name is mentioned Ashima Cotton Mills. 9. So these OPs wants to speak against to the contents of their own document. They want to breathe hot and cold. In the defence set out they say that through oversight the said consignment was delivered to Ashima Textiles, it is a typographical mistake. But their delivery run sheet shows it is alleged to have been delivered to Ashima Cotton Mills itself. It is contended that the Clerk of complainant has received the same. Who is that Clerk is not known. Some signature is put on the said delivery run sheet. It is not known to whom it belongs. Complainant has specifically contended that he is a sole Proprietor of his company and he has not engaged the services of any staff. When that is so, the burden lies on the OP to substantiate the actual delivery of the said consignment to the consignee in time. But here we find the OPs have utterly failed to discharge their burden. 10. On the perusal of the delivery run sheet certain consignment notes are rounded up with red ink, but this disputed consignment note is not rounded. It is not known whether actually it is delivered or not. The defence set out by the OP.1 and 2 is self contradictory on good number of material facts, they are not definite about their own stand. For no fault of the complainant, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that there is a proof of deficiency in service. The contention of the OPs that there is no privity of contract and complainant has not availed their services rather does not hold much water because admittedly complainant is the beneficiary of the said transaction. 11. Hence for these reasons we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief though not the actual value mentioned in the so called way bill. If the complainant is so advised, he can very well redress his grievance by filing a separate Civil Suit with regard to the said commercial invoice. In our view the justice will be met by directing each one of these OP.1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony and financial loss suffered by complainant by way of damages along with a litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant as well as the litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- each. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.