Date of Filing:17.09.2008<br /> Date of Order:05.11.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2036 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Santhosh Kulkarni<br /> Manager, ESCO Audio Visual<br /> India Pvt. Ltd.<br /> No. 348, Pavan 12th Cross, 2nd Block<br /> R.T. Nagar, Bangalore 560 032 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Branch Manager<br /> DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.<br /> Near HDFC Bank<br /> R.T. Nagar Branch<br /> R.T. Nagar, Bangalore 560 032<br /> <br /> 2. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.<br /> Regional Office, No. 269<br /> Lahari Towers, Albert Victor Road<br /> 1st Main, Chamarajpet<br /> Bangalore 560 018<br /> Rep. by its Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that opposite parties are leading courier company engaged in business of transportation of goods. On 3.11.2007 complainant has entrusted the consignment to the opposite party No. 1 at R.T. Nagar Branch office, Bangalore for delivery to Pune. The complainant has disclosed the value and contents of the consignment along with Proforma Invoice containing 13 boxes worth Rs. 2,58,782/-. Opposite parties had delivered consignment to the consignee M/s. IBM Pvt. Ltd. Pune only 12 boxes instead of 13 boxes. The undelivered box containing 17 Nos. of Projector Ceiling Mount Valued at Rs. 50,679/-. Due to negligence and deficiency in service the complainant has suffered financial loss. Complainant repeatedly asked the opposite parties the status and condition of the consignment. There is no response from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are guilty of deficiency of service and negligence. Therefore, the complainant has prayed that opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 50,679/- along with interest and compensation.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties through RPAD. Notice served on the opposite parties. Inspite of service of notice the opposite parties have not appeared before this form. The opposite parties have not even sent defence version by post. Therefore, the opposite parties 1 & 2 placed ex-parte. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complainant is filed. Arguments are heard. I have gone through the complaint and documents.<br /> 4. The complainant has produced the courier Consignment Note dated 03.11.2007. As per this note it is clear that 13 boxes were booked to the opposite parties. Complainant has also produced Delivery Challan dated 03.11.2007. Complainant has produced Proforma Invoice. This invoice disclosed that complainant has sent Projector Ceiling Mount, Floor Box, Belden Cat 5 Cable worth Rs. 2,58,782/-. This includes Projector Ceiling Mount, quantity 22, Unit Price 2,977/- total amount Rs. 65,494/-. Out of these 22 items complainant has stated that 17 Nos. of Projector Ceiling Mount sent in one box was not delivered to the consignee. Value of 17 Projector Ceiling Mount had been worked out to be Rs. 50,679/-. The complainant has sent a letter to the opposite parties on 29.11.2007 stating that 13 boxes worth Rs. 2,58,782/- was given to the opposite parties under the Consignment Note No. B39549784 dated 03.11.2007. The Consignee M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Pune received 12 boxes only and in the said letter it is stated that the undelivered box was containing 17 Nos. of Projector Ceiling Mount valued at Rs. 50,679/-. The complainant requested the opposite parties kindly to arrange for delivery of one box or arrange for settlement of the cost. The complainant has produced Delivery Run Sheet of opposite parties. This sheet also discloses that consignee has received 12 boxes only. The complainant has produced another letter dated 08.12.2007 sent to opposite parties and in this letter complainant had asked to arrange for delivery of lost box or to arrange for the settlement of the claim and requested the opposite parties to look into the matter and take necessary action for the settlement immediately. The opposite parties in spite of receiving 2 letters from the complainant have not come forward to settle the claim. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file this complaint before this forum. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite parties have not contested the matter in spite of service of notice. It appears that the opposite parties have no defence to make. That is why they have not appeared and contested the matter. There is nothing to disbelieve the facts stated by the complainant. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect the better interests of the consumers. In this case the complainant is definitely a consumer and opposite parties are the service providers. They have definitely committed negligence and deficiency in service in not delivering one box to the consignee. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot escape from their obligation to make good loss to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,679/- to the complainant.<br /> 6. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 7. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />