THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 99 of 2019

 

Sri Sandeep Kumar,

Permanent Resident of 

House No.25/1, Gail No.2,

Rambag Colony,

Nauchandi Meerut, 

Uttar Pradesh,

Pin-250001.

 

Presently residing at 

NIT Agartala Complex,

Kendriya Vidyalaya, P.S. Jirania,

NIT Agartala, Jirania, P.O. NIT,

West Tripura, PIN- 799046. ..................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1.  The Branch Manager,

Gati Kwe, 

Champamura Near Tolakana Chowmuhani, 

Bye Pass Road, Old Agartala, 

P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Paschim Champamura, 

District- West Tripura, Pin- 799008.

 

2. The Managing Director,

Gati – Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. 1st Floor, 

Plot  No.20, Survey  No.12, Kothaguda,

Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084,

Telengana, India.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

Gati-Kwe,

M.H. Road, Cooch Behar Ho,

Cooch Behar- 736101.

Gowalapatti. ….….....................Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Kumar Sankar Sarma,

  Sri Koushik Datta,

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.Ps : Sri K. Dhirendra Singha

  Learned Advocate.

   

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  29.04.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainants' case in short is that he is an Central Government Employee and he is serving in the Kendriya Sangathan as a Post Graduate Teacher(Computer Science) and was posted in Cooch Behar, Kendriya Vidyalaya and transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya NIT, Agartala. The complainant booked his house hold articles through Opposite party No.3 (in short O.P.) for transportation and delivery of the same at Kendriya Vidyalaya, NIT, Agartala, Jirania vide docket No.441874388, dated 22.09.2018 and also paid freight charges of Rs.4872/- along insurance premium of Rs.300/-. It was assured by the O.P. that the articles would be delivered within 2 weeks to the complainant in the address at Agartala. On 09.10.2018 3 packages out of 4 packages were delivered by the O.Ps but they did not deliver 4th package and assured to deliver within a week. After elapse of the assured time   when the package was not delivered the complainant approached the regional office of the O.Ps for delivery of the house hold articles package and finally made online complaint vide no.CS150508 for delivery of the missing package. Thereafter he made several communication with the O.Ps. The value of the consignment containing the articles of the complainant after proper ascertainment by the O.Ps was Rs.30,000/- but the O.Ps had unilaterally decided the value of Rs.10,000/- creating pressure upon the complainant and also had taken signature on some blank papers in the name of settlement of the claim of the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that the O.Ps can not pay Rs.10,000/- when the declared value was Rs.30,000/- as there was negligence on the part of the O.Ps for misplacing the package of the complainant. They are deficient of providing their service resulting in turn unfair trade practice for which the complainant is required to be compensated. Complainant sustained a great financial loss and mental anxiety and suffering and he had to purchase the house hold articles from the market again for the cost of Rs.30,000/- as such the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice upon the O.Ps for getting redress. But the O.Ps failed to discharge their liabilities. 

 

2. After getting notice from this Commission the O.Ps appeared and filed written objection denying all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. They have stated that the complaint is not maintainable in law and barred under the provision of C.P. Act 1986. They also stated that the complainant filed the instant petition for getting wrongful gain from the O.Ps. The complaint petition is baseless, misconceived and devoid of any merit. The said complaint will be rejected as non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties. The calculation of damages were always in question. Hence the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the complaint made by the complainant. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W.1. Complainant submitted 11 nos. of documents vide firsiti dated 26.11.2019 which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

O.Ps also submitted examination in chief of one witness namely Ganesh Kumar Singha, Authorized Signatory, Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd.  Agartala Branch as O.P.W.1. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

 

5. ARGUMENTS:

We heard arguments of both sides. Learned counsel Mr. Kumar Sankar Sarma on behalf of the complainant submitted that the complainant is a Central govt. employee and serving at Kendriya Vidyalaya as a post Graduate Teacher and by a transfer order dated 14.09.2018 he was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalay NIT, Agartala. Accordingly he booked his house hold articles through O.P. No.3 for transportation and delivery of the same at Kendriya Vidyalay, NIT, Agartala, Jirania vide docket no- 441874388 dated 22.09.2018 and also paid freight charges of Rs.4,872/- along with insurance premium of Rs.300/- which was assured by the O.P. that the articles would be delivered within 2 weeks to the complainant in his address. On 09.10.2018 3 packages out of 4 packages were delivered by the O.Ps but they did not deliver the 4th package. O.P. assured that they will deliver 4th package within 2 weeks but failed. Complainant lodged an online complaint for the missing package but no good. Learned counsel submitted that due to missing of the 4th package complainant suffered loss of Rs.30,000/- but the O.Ps ultimately decided the value of the same as Rs.10,000/- by creating pressure upon the complainant. He submitted that the complainant was compelled to file this complaint for getting sufficient relief as compensation against the O.Ps. 

 

On the other hand learned advocate of the O.Ps submitted that the consignment has been booked by the complainant on shipper's risk basis which means if any damages will occur then only consignor, i.e., that the complainant, will be sole liable, not the carrier that is the O.Ps. It is further submitted that if the consignment is insured with the complainant then the insurance company also needs to be impleaded as party in the instant case. It is submitted that the complainant himself was making calculation of the damage of its own motion and that calculation was not acceptable. It is further submitted that complaint is not maintainable as complainant did not issue any statutory notice upon the O.P. under carriage Act 2007 which is mandatory. Learned counsel of the O.P. further submitted that O.P. was ready to pay Rs.7,500/- for the purpose of loss of 4th package. So, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :-  

Both the points are taken up together for convenience. We have gone through the complaint petition as well as written reply and the evidences adduced by way of affidavit by both parties.

On perusal of the pleadings we find that it is admitted fact that there was missing of 4th package and it is also admitted fact that O.Ps agreed to make payment of Rs.7500/- but the complainant was not willing to receive the same. On perusal of the complaint as well as the examination in chief on affidavit submitted by the complainant we do not find any description of the articles which contained in the 4th package. The complainant ought to have stated the details of the articles/goods which contained in the 4th package in the complaint petition as well as in the examination in chief on affidavit. Only we find that complainant claimed Rs.30,000/- as value of the 4th package. Mere assertion cannot take place the place of proof. We do not find any evidences regarding the loss of Rs.30,000/- by missing the 4th package. It is true that O.P. admitted the missing of 4th package and they also agreed to make some compensation.

Considering the circumstances of the case and over all aspects we are of the opinion that the complainant suffered some sort of loss due to missing of the 4th package and for that O.Ps are liable to pay compensation. But now the question is what will be the amount of compensation. 

We have already opined that complainant has failed to adduce any evidence in respect of the value of the 4th package and it was his assumption that value of the 4th package was Rs.30,000/- and it is not admitted by the O.Ps. So in this circumstances we have to allow a lumpsum amount to the complainant. It will be just if the amount would be Rs.15,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for sufferings and mental agony. That means in total complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/-. 

 

7. Hence O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2(two) months from the date of judgment, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9 % P.A. until realization in full. Both the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. Accordingly complaint is partly allowed. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.   

 

Announced.

 

SD/-

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SD/-

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SD/-

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.