↵
DATE OF FILING : 28/01/2014
DATE OF S/R : 20/03/2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 05/08/2015
B.P. ENGINEERING WORKS,
a proprietorship business,
represented by it sole proprietor
SRI SAMIR MONDAL
S/O Sri Biman Chandra Mondal,
By faith hindu, by Occupation business,
Residing at Balitikrui Sethpara,
P.O. Balitikrui, P.S. Jagacha,
District Howrah………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
Versus-
1. SRI RAJU RAJAK
S/O Sri Ram Rajak,
Having its business under the name and style
GATI AHED IN REACH
Gati Ltd. Office at 142/1/2, Narasingha Dutta Road,
Kadamtala, Howrah 711101.
2. Blue Dart Express Ltd.
Having its office at
41, Chowringhee Road, 2nd Fl,
Kolkata, 700 071 being represented by
Mr. Aniruddha Dasgupta,
Assistant Manager,
Customer Service, Blue Dart Express Ltd.
Having its office at
41, Chowringhee Road, 2nd floor,
Kolkata 700 071 …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, B.P.ENGINEERING WORKS,proprietor,SriSamir Mondal, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to return the schedule noted article or to pay the cost of the same alongwith the fare as well as the octroy charge amounting to Rs.50000/ only, to pay Rs.100000/ as compensation, Rs. 10000 as litigation cost alongwith other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant sent one mobile set to his business customer availing the service of O.Ps. on 01/11/2013 on payment of Rs.730 for which money receipt was also issued vide annexure. O.P. 1 is the franchise of O.P. 2. But the consignment was not delivered to the concerned person at pune even on 19/11/2013. Complainant immediately contacted O.P. 1 and O.P. 1 came to the office of the complainant and gave one under taking that either they would return the mobile set or refund the present market value of the same within 11/12/2013. O.P. 2 also sent one e mail on 19/11/2013 stating the they were trying to trace out the status of the booked shipment being no 13912865481 dt. 01/11/2013.But even after expiry of quite a good number of days they could not do anything fruitful. So complainant sent lawyer’s notice dt. 06/12/2013 vide annexure to O.P. 2 and on 01/01/2014 O.P. 2 sent one reply to the complainant denying and disputing the claims of the complainant made in his lawyer’s notice dt. 06/12/2013 So finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
- Notices were served. Upon O.Ps. appeared and filed written version.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- We have carefully gone through the w/v alongwith the annexures and noted their contents. It is the specific plea taken by O.Ps. that as per terms and conditions appearing on the front page of the money receipt being no 13912865481dt. 01/11/2013, they are liable to pay Rs.5000/- at the best in case of damage or loss of articles sent by the customers, herein, the complainant. It is also their claim that it was not within their knowledge that complainant sent one valuable article like mobile handset through their courier. And they always suggest for getting insurance if any valuable article is sent. But complainant did not disclose the value of the article to the O.Ps. as the column “Commercial value of Consignment” remained blank in the money receipt dt. 01/11/2013.So, we are also in dark about the article what was actually sent by complainant through the courier, herein, o.p.2. O.Ps. have also annexed the reported judgment passed by our Hon’ ble Apex Court where it was held that the liability of the carrier, herein, O.P. 2, O.P. 1 being its agent, should be limited to the extent undertaken in the contract, herein, the money receipt.
In this case also i.e in the money receipt dt. 01/11/2013, the extent of liability of O.P. 2 is already mentioned which is Rs.5000/- at the best. And the complainant put his signature in the column “Shipper’s Signature” with full knowledge and consent. O.P. 2 is ready and willing to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that the petition of complainant should be allowed to that extent.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 40 of 2014 ( HDF 14 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest against O.P. 2 with cost and dismissed without cost against O.P. 1.
That the O.P. 2 is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complaint within one month from this order i.d. 9% interest shall be imposed on the entire amount of Rs.7000 till actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put this final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
