BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 3/2013.
THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sunil Kumar S/o. Bheemanna, age: major,
Occ: Business, R/o. near Maruthi Temple, Hutti village, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Branch Manager, VRL Logistics Ltd.,
Branch Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
2. The VRL Logistics Ltd., Corp. Off: Giriraj Annexe Circuit House Raod, Hubli- 584 129.
Date of institution :- 11-01-2013.
Notice served :- 26-02-2013
Date of disposal :- 25-07-2013
Complainant represented by Sri. C.K. Basavaraj Naik, Advocate
Opposites represented by Sri. Udaya Keerthi, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the computer Mega Mart Bangalore had sent the computer with CPU worth of Rs. 45,000/- including Vat on 23-06-2012 to the complainant under invoice No. 2012-13/829. On receipt of the said computer the complainant found some defect in it and in that regard on telephonic conversation with the company the complainant returned the said computer to the above said Mega Mart, Banalore from Hutti through the Respondent No-1vide Way Bill No. 506123421 dt. 09-08-2012 by paying freight charges of Rs. 90/-. However, even after stipulated time, the above consignment sent by the complainant had not reached the destination till this day. The value of the said consignment was Rs. 45,000/-. In this regard the complainant approached the Respondents’ office at Hutti and at other centers. But the whereabouts of the consignment could not be made out. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the Respondent No-2. Even after the receipt of the said legal notice there was no response from the Respondents. The silence on the part of the Respondents clearly shows their sheer negligence and deficiency in service due to which complainant suffered heavy loss, inconvenience, mental agony etc., Therefore the complaint seeking compensation as prayed for.
3. The Respondent No-2 filed written version which is adopted by Respondent No-1 by filing a memo and the said written version is as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed with costs. The contents of Para-1 are not within the knowledge of the Respondent. It is true that, the complainant had booked his consignment through Respondent No-1 from Hutti to Bangalore. The contents of Para-3 are false and denied. At no point of time the delay is caused by the Respondent in delivering the consignment at its destination. As per the contention of the complainant he had booked his consignment on 09-08-2012. There is an acknowledgement from the computer Mega mart, Bangalore for having received the consignment on 17-08-2012 itself. There is also delivery receipt issued by the Respondents Transport Company for having delivered the said consignment. When the matter was so clear, the question of deficiency in service or delay in service on the part of the Respondent does not arise at all. The contents of Para-4 are far away from truth. As the consignment is having been delivered to the consignee the question of receiving notice or giving reply etc., does not arise at all. In fact no notice much less the one dt. 23-11-2012 has been received by the Respondents and the complainant has falsely submitted in that regard. Under the above real facts, the question of incurring loss by the complainant is imaginary and in order to make an unlawful gain he had filed the false complaint. When there is no deficiency in service on the part of Respondent the question of paying any compensation to the complainant does not arise at all. It is the complainant who has to compensate the Respondents for filing a false complaint against them. Hence the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs to meet the ends of justice.
4. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on four documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. The Respondents to prove their case filed affidavit of one R.B. Gadakar which is marked as RW-1 and relied on three documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3.
5. Arguments heard on both sides. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents’ against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
6. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In Negative
(2) In Negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
7. The fact that, the complainant had booked the consignment at Hutti with the Respondent No-1 to be transported to Bangalore, is not disputed by the Respondent.
8. It is the case of the complainant that, on 09-08-2012 he had booked a computer with CPU worth Rs. 45,000/- with Respondent No-1 to be transported and delivered to Mega Mart Bangalore and the Respondents’ Transport Company even after stipulated time failed to deliver the said consignment to the consignee and therefore he asked for compensation which included Rs. 45,000/- which is the value of the computer and CPU. However, Respondents have contended that, the consignment booked by the complainant with them at Hutti was duly delivered to the consignee Mega Mart, Bangalore on 17-08-2012 itself to whom the Respondents have issued receipt for having delivered it.
9. To substantiate their contention, that the consignment booked by the complainant with them at Hutti was delivered to the consignee i.e, Mega Mart Bangalore the Respondents produced the copy of Delivery Cum Cash Receipt issued by them in favour of Mega Mart Bangalore which is marked at Ex.R-1. It shows that, the consignment booked at Hutti on 08-08-2012 was delivered to Mega Mart Bangalore on 17-08-2012 by collecting Rs. 15/- from them. The said Ex.R-1 shows that, the consignment was received in respect of Way Bill No. 506123421 by the consignee. Besides this Ex.R-2 which is the Way Bill No. 506123421issued by the Respondents’ Transport Company at Hutti shows that, the consignor is Sunil Kumar, who is the none other than complainant, and the consignee is computer Mega Mart Bangalore. This Ex.R-2 shows that, the computer booked under it was delivered to consignee Mega Mart Bangalore under Ex.R-1. To substantiate this conclusion the Respondents produced the receipt issued by Mega Mart Bangalore for having received the computer and CPU booked under Way Bill No. 506123421 and delivered to them, the copy of which is marked as Ex.R-3. This makes it very clear that, the consignment sent by the complainant to be delivered to Mega Mart Bangalore through the Respondents’ Company was promptly delivered to the consignee. Therefore, there is no stuff and truth in the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant against Respondents for deficiency in service. Therefore this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. As complainant has not made out the case of deficiency in service against the Respondents he is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-07-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
