Tripura

West Tripura

CC/25/2015

Sri Benu Badan Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri N. Pathak, Operation Manager, Overnite Express Ltd. & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  25 of 2015

     Sri Benu Badan Chakraborty,
S/o- Late Debendra Chakraborty,
Srinagar, (near T.V. Tower),
Road No.4, Arundhutinagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

Sri N. Pathak,
Operation Manager, 
Overnight Express Ltd., 
7/A, Tiljala Road,
Kolkata- 700046.

3.    In-charge,
Overnight Express Ltd.  
18, Amulya Market,
Mantribari Road, 
Agartala, West Tripura.        ...........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

for the Complainant        : The complainant in person.
                                               
For the O.P. No. 1        : None appeared.

For the O.Ps No.3        : Sri Abhijit Sengupta,
                  Advocate.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  01.12.15

J U D G M E N T
            This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Benu Badan Chakraborty of Srinagar, Arundhutinagar, Agartala against the O.Ps, namely Sri N. Pathak, Operation Manager, Overnight Express Ltd., 7/A, Tiljala Road, New Alipur, Kolkata another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.
2.            The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that on 24.12.14 one packet of 'Renolog' tablet weighing about 1 kg was booked with the courier service, namely Over Night Express Ltd., Triangular Park, New Alipur, Kolkata vide consignment note No. 7557043561 dated 20.12.14 by the Physician of the complainant, Dr. Suman Haldar of Bidhanagar, Kolkata for delivery at the residential address of the complainant. The consignor paid Rs.404/- being the transportation charge of the consignment. As per terms of contract, the O.P. courier service failed to deliver the consignment within the promised time. The complainant made contact with the O.Ps on a number of occasions but they failed to give any satisfactory reply for non-delivery of the consignment at his address. It is asserted that the medicines in question were brought from Kolkata for treatment of the complainant's kidney ailments. For non taking of such medicines for a couple of days his health condition badly deteriorated  and, for this, he had to suffer a lot. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.
3.            The O.P. No.1 did not contest the case despite receipt of notice. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against him.
4.            The O.P. No.3  contested the case by filing written objection stating, interalia, that the complainant made contact with him on a number of occasions to know about the fate of the consignment booked with their courier service in Kolkata. He informed the complainant that the consignment was lost in transit and he requested him to receive the value of the consignment. It is denied by him that he was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant since he never received the consignment in question from the Head Office located in Kolkata. 
5.            In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the original consignment note as Exhibit-1.
6.            No primary or secondary evidence has been adduced on behalf of O.P. No.3. 
        FINDINGS:
7.            The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps No.1 and 3 were deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
8.            We have already heard arguments advanced by the complainant in person and the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.3. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously. 

9.            It is the case of the complainant that one packet of 'Renolog' tablets was booked with the courier service, namely Overnight Express Ltd., 7/A Triangular Park, New Alipur, Kolkata for carriage to Agartala for being delivery to the complainant. It appears that the consignment was booked through a consignment note No.  7557043561 dated 20.12.14. A sum of Rs.404/- was paid being transportation charge of the consignment. The complainant in his pleading as well as evidence has clearly stated that the consignment did not reach the destination with in the promised time. Though he made contact with the O.P. No.1 over phone on a number of occasions, yet he failed to give any satisfactory reply for non-delivery of the consignment to him. From the written objection filed by the O.P. No.3 it is clear that the consignment was lost in transit and he also offered the value of consignment to the complainant. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the assertion of the complainant. The O.P. No.1 chose not to contest the case to discard the allegation levelled by the complainant. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the case of non-delivery of the consignment by the courier, burden of proving of absence of negligence is on the courier. But in the present case, the O.P. No.1 being the courier has failed to discharge his burden. As per settled law, in case of loss of goods or delivery to the wrong person or delay in delivery, presumption would be negligence on the part of the courier. That being so, the O.P. No.1 being the courier is definitely liable to pay compensation for non delivery of the consignment to the complainant. Since the O.P. No.3 did not receive the consignment from the O.P. No.1, he can not be fastened with liability to pay any compensation to the complainant. 
10.        For the reasons aforementioned, we hold that the complainant has succeeded in establishing that the O.P. No.1 was  negligent and deficient in rendering service. Consequently, he is bound to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him.

11.            In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. It is directed that the O.P. No.1 will pay Rs.2,404/- (Rupees two thousand four hundred and four) to the complainant as cost of medicines and freight charges. The O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing his mental anxiety and harassment with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) as cost of litigation. The O.P. 1 will pay the entire amount within 45 days from today, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of booking of the consignment on 20.12.14 till the payment is made in full.       
                     A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.