Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 46 / 2007

1)           Eleena Banik,

4/9, Ekdalia Road, Kolkata-19.                                 ---------- Complainant

1)           T.S.P. World Wide Express,

1B, Dover Lane, Kolkata-29.

2)           Sanchari Dhar,

3)           AFL Private Limited,

This is to consider a Petition filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended uptodate by the Complainant, Eleena Banik alleging deficiency of service against the O.Ps.

The Complainant is an Artist and desired to hold a preview exhibition in Kolkata regarding her Paintings & Sculptures Exhibition to be held in Mumbai, and for this purpose she wanted to invite some dignitaries in that preview in Kolkata. So, she prepared a costly Catalogue and Invitation Card for informing the invitees and requesting them to be present at the said preview to be held during 31^st. October to 2^nd. November, 2006. And she opted to send those materials to different parts of Kolkata engaging the O.P. No. 1 as the Courier Service. She handed over 56 articles to O.P. No. 1, who is the authorized agent of O.P. No. 3 for delivery of such articles to the Guests of the Complainant. She also stated that O.P. No. 1 verbally and O.P. No. 3 by media advertisement had expressed that the articles will reach the destination within 24 hours of receipt. On receipt of Rs. 1,400.00 (Rs. 1,150 by cheque and Rs. 250.00 in cash) by O.P. No. 1 from the Complainant, O.P. 1 issued Airway Bills to the Complainant, vide Annexure-B, and the cheque was duly encashed by O,P. 1 through their bank account, vide Annexure-C. But, to her utter surprise, complainant found that very little guests turned up at the preview. When she called up the invitees, she came to know that the said articles have not reached the guests. So very few numbers of prospective buyers turned up in the preview exhibition, and the purpose of holding such preview exhibition was frustrated. After that her mother and the Constituted Attorney of the Complainant, Shukla Banik, issued a letter dated 08.01.2006 to the O.P. 1 asking for the proof of delivery of the said articles sent through them, vide Annexure-D. But it was unreplied. Even then Complainant wrote indicate a letter dated 10.11.2006 to the O.P. No. 2 with a copy to O.P. No. 3 narrating the whole and seeking investigation of the same, vide Annexure-E, O.P. 2 replied the said letter by a letter dated 13.11.2006 stating therein that the Airway Bill was not handed over to them for delivery and as the said receipts were not signed by any one of them it was not issued by them and as such AIR way bills were not received by them. But it was admitted that Airway Bills belong to their company but they were not physically handed over to them by the O.P. 1, vide Annexure-F. Complainant further stated that none of the Airway Bills were sighed by anyone although few of the articles were received by the intended invitees. After that, seeking the clarification of the whole incident, complainant visited the offices of both O.P. Nos. 1 & 2, but she was not cooperated with. And it is the specific allegation of the Complainant inspite of receiving the required service charges by the O.P. 1, who is the agent of O.Ps. 2 & 3, the O.Ps are deficient in service that caused tremendous mental agony to the Complainant as very few desired guests turned up in the preview exhibition. Inspite of several visits made by the Complainant to the offices of the O.P. 1 & 2, grievances of the Complainant were not at all redressed by the O.Ps. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed this instant case on 14.02.2007 praying for the directions to be given upon the O.P. to refund Rs. 1,400.00 as received by O.P. 1 as service charges and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,08,120.00 for the mental agony, and loss she suffered in monitory terms, to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 for deficiency of service alongwith further Order or Orders. Notices were served upon the O.Ps. All the O.Ps appeared and submitted their respective W.Vs as well as Evidences on Affidavit. We have perused all the documents alongwith the annexures.

We have perused the Petition of Complaint sworn on Affidavit alongwith the annexures filed by the Complainant. We have also gone through the W.Vs filed by all the O.Ps. In the W.V. filed by O.P. 1, O.P. 1 has acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 1,400.00 as the Service Charge paid by the Complainant towards the delivery of 56 articles. O.P. 1 has also stated that in and around November, 2006 the Office of the O.P. 1 was under renovation work, and in course of such renovation certain office stationery, papers, documents were displaced and/or stolen and the said incidence was noticed by them on 17^th November, 2006 for which they lodged a General Diary with local Gariahat P.S., vide GD No. 1399 dated 17.11.2006. Accordingly, when the Complainant demanded the acknowledgement or proof of delivery of articles of 56 numbers from O.P. 1 they could not give it because office copy of the Airway Bills was either mis-placed or stolen. But the O.P. 1 further stated that they have properly delivered all 56 articles to the addressees in time and had intimated the said fact to the Complainant. O.P. 1 has also stated that the Complainant refused to pay the usual service charge @ Rs. 35.00 per article and the Complainant actually paid Rs. 25.00 per article for 56 articles. It is for the old and cordial relationship with the Complainant that the O.P. 1 agreed to do the job, and they have done it. In the WV filed by the O.P. 2 & 3, they have clearly stated that they did not receive any article either from the Complainant or from the O.P. NO. 1 for delivery of the same to the addressees. They have also not received any consideration money from the Complainant. They have also denied that the O.P. No. 1 had acted either as an agent or franchise of O.Ps. No. 2 & 3. They have also denied the allegation made by the Complainant in the Petition against them specifically in paragraph-wise. In paragraph 15, O.P. 2 & 3 submitted that in response to Complainant’s letter dated 10.11.2006, they wrote one letter to O.P. No. 1 on 20.03.2007 and intimated that those 56 numbers of Airway Bills as claimed by the Complainant did not reach the company for delivery to the addressees and against those 56 Airway Bills no payment was received by them too.

From the above contentions made in W.Vs filed by all the O.Ps, it appears to us that O.P. 1 is Agent of O.P. No. 2 & 3. In paragraph 15 O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 have mentioned that they wrote a letter to O.P. No. 1 on 20.03.2007 stating the whole incident as well as asking for explanation. We have also perused one Airway Bill of AFL (P) Ltd. issued in the name of the Complainant. Accordingly, the nexus between O.P. 1, 2 & 3 is well established, and O.P. No. 2 & 3 cannot simply move away from their responsibility. O.P. No. 1 has also not filed any proof of delivery of 56 articles as stated in their W.V. Accordingly, we hold all the O.Ps to be deficient in providing service to the Complainant. The non-delivery of the articles as sent by the Complainant has caused a severe mental agony, apart from the monetary loss to the Complainant.

Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit. We have also perused the questionnaire filed by O.P. 1 and its reply filed by the Complainant.

Hence

O.P. NO. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 1,400.00 alongwith an interest @ 10% per annum since 26.10.2006 (being the date of encashment of cheque No. MCC-009251 dated 25.10.2006) till 14.02.2007. The Complainant do get an award of Rs. 5,000.00 as Compensation and Rs. 1,000.00 as Litigation Cost. O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay the Decretal Amount within 1 month from the date of communication of this Order, failing which it will carry an interest @ 10% per annum until full realization.

Fees paid are correct. Let the copy of this Order be served upon all the Parties free of cost.