Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/554/2014

Ramindersingh I Khurana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory GATI Kintestu Express Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Hanchinal

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President).

ORDER

The complainant has filed complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act. Alleging deficiency of service non delivery of materials/Article booked with the opponents.

2) O.Ps. appeared and filed his version denied certain facts in the complaint.

          3) Both parties have filed their affidavits and some documents are produced by both the parties.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the counsel for complainant and O.Ps. and have perused the records.

5)  Whether the complainants has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and that the complainants is entitled to the reliefs sought?

6) Our finding on the point is partly in Affirmative, for the following reasons.

: REASONS :

7)      The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. and submitted that the complainant has placed an order for preparation of Kalasa stainless steel materials from Rameshkumar Vij and Son on 12/3/2014 for Rs.10,000/- and said authority has sent above material through O.P.No.1 on 15/3/2014 through docket No.409365033. The complainant further stated that, the O.P.No.1 has stated to Rameshkumar that if he will delivered above material to complainant within 3 days of consignment, the said Rameshkumar has paid fright charges of Rs.550/- to opponent No.1. The complainant further alleged that he has met opponent No.1 on 18/3/2014 for taking delivery of material sent to him by Rameshkumar and Son but opponent No.3 said to the complainant that goods were not received from Amritsar and requested to the complainant to approach Goa, Hubli and Nagpur offices for said material. The complainant further alleged that he has sent the request letter to Belgaum and Hubli offices on 4/4/2014 and 5/4/2014 through email address to James and Geeta to Hubli and Belgaum offices respectively and also through telephone message. The complainant has personally given request application to opponent No.3 on 10/4/2014 and on that day the said authority has given endorsement that he has not received consignment sent by Rameshkumar and Son, hence he has not delivered to the said material to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he has made arrangement for fixing “Kalasa” through technical person from Pune and has paid Rs.10,000/- through cheque drawn on Canara Bank Belgaum for their lodging and boarding. At last the complainant has got issued legal notice through his counsel on 10/6/2014 to the opponents requesting them to make arrangement for materials send by Rameshkumar and Son. The complainant further alleged that on 21/6/2014 the opponent No.2 has given a reply stating that the opponents firm is registered under companies Act and governed under carriers Act and office of opponent No.2 is situated at Sikandrabad, hence under arbitration clause Sikandrabad has got jurisdiction. This contention taken by opponent No.2 only with an intention not to make arrangement for delivery of consignment send from Rameshkumar and Son to the complainant. The complainant further alleges that he has not received A.D. slip of opponent No.1 and 2. Hence he has given complaint to postal authority on 14/7/2014 and said authority has given particulars of delivery of materials to the complainant stating that the material have been delivered by them on 14/6/2014. The complainant further states that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opponents.

8) The Opponents No.1 to 3 filed their objection and affidavit and contends that, Mr. Ramesh has booked the consignment at Amritsar to be delivered at Belgaun on 15/3/2014 under docket No. 409365033 and it is true the Rameshkumar has paid the fright charges of Rs.550/- to the company at Amritsar. The opponents submits that the complainant has approached the opponent No.3 for taking delivery on 18/3/2014 but the goods were not delivered to the complainant as it has been loss in transport and this fact has been intimated to the complainant. The opponent No.3 admits that the complainant had informed the O.Ps. by phone and via. Email about the non receipt of the consignment. The opponents further contends that the opponents are bound by the Carriers Act and they are liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- as declared in the consignment note which is clearly mentioned that (Co-restricts it liability through this docket to be Rs.400/- or actual loss suffered subject to maximum of Rs.5,000/- whichever is lower) and it has been signed by Mr. Rameshkumar he has agreed to terms and conditions of the company while interesting the consignment to opponent No.1 to deliver the consignment to the complainant. The opponents further contends that the complainant has spent Rs.10,000/- for the stay for the technical person towards lodging and boarding is denied by the opponents. The opponents contends that the postal authority for non receipt of A.D. slip on 14/7/2014 and the articles is delivered on 14/6/2014 does not reveal which articles was delivered and that the opponent are ready and willing to make payment of Rs.2,000/- in addition to Rs.550/- the fright charges. Further contends that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, same has to be adjudicated before the arbitrator for settlement.  The opponents further denied that the cost of the articles is Rs.10,000/- and the claim made by the complainant is imaginary and false claim and the claim deserved to be dismissed with cost.

9) The complainant has produced in all 10 documents which includes the original receipts that is the docket issued by the opponents and order invoice, letter addressed through email, hand written letter to opponent, true copy of passbook and also to the legal notice issued to the opponents etc., On the other hand opponents have produced in all 5 documents as per the list. Main contention of the complainant is that the opponents have not delivered the article to him which was sent by Rameshkumar and Son on 15/3/2014 and the opponents admits this fact that the material was booked from Amritsar, but the opponents admit that the material booked under the consignment was lost and also in their objection, affidavit the opponents states that, they are ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- and also the fright charges of Rs.550/- to the complainant. But the complainant allegations are that he has spent Rs.10,000/- for the Kalasa which was to be delivered to him, to show that he has spent the said amount for Kalasa, the complainant has produced the letter head issued by the Rameshkumar and Son, on their letter head wherein we can see that total amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid for Rs.5,000/- each on 12/3/2014 and same is signed by the Rameshkumar. The complainant has produced the notarized true copy of passbook wherein it has been marked and it shows debit of Rs.10,000/- debited in name of Mohan. The complainant has produced the passbook showing Rs.10,000/- as debit to Mohan, but in the complaint the complainant has not mentioned the name of the said Mohan as a technical nor it is clear that actually who is Mohan. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant has not clarified in regards to the expenditure of Rs.10,000/- to the technician and there are no documents to establish the payment made.

10) The complainant has produced the docket issued by the opponent in original and the opponent has produced the copy of the said docket wherein under the declared value column the amount is mentioned as Rs.2,000/- and also another document produced by the opponent is the computerized observation note bearing No.219517 wherein under the shipment column the value of the articles is shown as Rs.2,000/-. The opponents have admitted the loss of the articles and the opponents in their affidavit and objection admit to pay Rs.2,000/- the declared value along with the fright charges. According to their docket conditions if the article is loss the liability of the opponent is restricted to Rs.400/- and subject to maximum of Rs.5,000/-.  But the value of article in the receipt is shown as Rs.2,000/-, the complainant has produced the receipt issued by the Rameshkumar and Son on their letter head which shows the amount receipt of Rs.10,000/- and also the passbook entry reveals the deduction of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant had actually paid Rs.10,000/- or not to Rameshkumar and Son. The complainant has actually spent the said amount and we have to assess that whether the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.10,000/- according to the document produced?  Coming to the declaration value, the opponents have produced the observation note wherein declaration value is Rs.2,000/- and also it is important note that the document styled as docket receipt discloses the declaration value of Rs.2,000/- booked by Rameshkumar and Son and the said value was added at the time of sending the article. Hence we are of the opinion that the opponents are liable to pay Rs.2,000/-, the declare value and also it is to be noted that the opponent in his objection and affidavit has admitted to pay the same to the complainant along with the fright charges of Rs.550/-. The another contention of the complainant is that he has spent Rs.10,000/- for fixing Kalasa at Gurudwara Temple by the technical person for stay in lodging and boarding. But to establish this, the complainant has not produced any document to show that the said amount is spent by him. On these observation there is no much to be discussed and the main point is that the article is booked and the same has been lost and this fact has been admitted and there is no denial of booking etc.,

11) The complainant has prayed for Rs.50,000/- as cost of complaint. It is true that the article has been lost and same has been admitted by the opponents. Therefore we are of the opinion that in place of the cost the complainant is entitled for compensation as ordered below;

12) Accordingly following order;

: ORDER :

The complaint is partly allowed.

The opponents are jointly and severely hereby directed and liable to pay Rs.2,000/- + Rs.550/- total Rs.2,550/- which includes fright charge, to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the date of filing of complaint i.e., 18/8/2014 till realization of entire amount.

The opponents are jointly and severely hereby directed and liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 2^nd day of March 2016).

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*