Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 10-03-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Siliguri in CC/57/2013, whereof the complaint case has been allowed.

The complaint case, in a nutshell, is that the Complainant booked one consignment through the OP on 31-01-2013.  As the consignment did not reach its destination in time, a complaint was lodged with the OP on 25-02-2013.  Legal notice served in this regard too turned out to be a futile exercise. As the OP did not take any positive step to redress his grievance, the complaint case was initiated.

By filing WV, the OP submitted that it informed its franchise before booking of the consignment that since the subject consignment was supposed to be sent outside Mumbai, it would be incumbent on the part of the Complainant to either handover the original tax invoice or pay requisite octroi.  As the Complainant did not provide the original tax invoice along with the consignment, the Octroi Intelligence Unit, Mumbai imposed a charge of Rs. 9,000/- in respect of the subject consignment.  Thereafter, Mumbai office of the OP informed the consignee to pay the said amount, which, however, was not paid by her.  The OP, accordingly, denied any deficiency in service on its part.

Decision with reasons

Notice was duly served upon both the Respondents.  Subsequently, one Advocate appeared on behalf of both of them by filing vakalatnama.  However, as he remained absent at the time of hearing, the Appeal was heard ex parte.

The instant complaint case was decided in favour of the Respondent No. 1 on account of Appellant’s utter failure to furnish requisite documents in order to substantiate the demand and/or payment of Rs. 9,000/- as octroi charge in respect of the subject television set in question.

Significantly, the relevant document has not been placed before us also by the Appellant.  Thus, it’s very contention of demand/payment of octroi charges is not at all sustainable. 

That apart, not a single scrap of paper is furnished from the side of the Appellant to show that it ever intimated the Respondent No. 1 about its requirement for original tax invoice or the necessity of paying octroi charge in lieu of it.

In view of this, unfortunate though, I find no merit at all in this Appeal.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondents.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.