Date of Filing: 18.11.2009<br /> Date of Order: 08.06.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 08TH DAY OF JUNE 2010<br /> <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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 2689 OF 2009<br /> <br /> B.R. Veena<br /> W/o. B.S. Ramachandra Prasad<br /> Proprietrix of Nirantara Computers<br /> No. 100, 1st Main, 1st Stage<br /> Basaveshwaranagar<br /> Bangalore 560 079 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Branch Manager and<br /> Authorised Agent / Rep. of <br /> Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd.<br /> (PAFEX), Ram Enterprises<br /> No. 4271, 1st Main<br /> Railway Parallel Road, 2nd Stage<br /> Subramanya Nagar, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 010<br /> <br /> 2. The Executive Director<br /> Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd.<br /> (PAFEX), No. 1098, 1st Floor<br /> Poorna Pragna School Road<br /> New Thippasandra, HAL 3rd Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 75 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Sri Balakrishna. V. Masali<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant has been proprietrix of Nirantara Computers which is a computer and its accessories sales and service center and the complainant is a self employed women and running this establishment for her livelihood. The complainant has booked the articles of following descriptions which includes 9 boxes in 3 quantities for sending the articles to the Chennai for her customer through the opposite parties. Description – Intel PDC 2.5 Ghz. Intel chipset DG 31, mother board, 2 gb ddr2 ram 320 gb seagate hdd, LG dvd writer 1 ball atx cabinet, 17” LG tft monitor, 1 ball keyboard, 1 ball optical mouse, 3 quantity worth of Rs. 64,350/- and also complainant has paid 4% vat at Rs. 2,574/- total cost of the above said article of Rs. 66,924/-. The opposite party No. 1 collected the said articles from the complainant office on 16.07.2009. The charged weight of the article were 53 kgs and opposite party No. 1 collected a sum of Rs. 1,749/- towards freight charges. Complainant has booked said consignment through second opposite party company from first opposite party for sending the articles to M/s. Ozone projects Pvt. Ltd., No. 63, GN Chetty road, T. Nagar, Chennai along with the consignment. Complainant has given the tax invoice to the opposite party No. 1.<br /> The said consignment had to be reached to the destination on or before 18.07.2009. Unfortunately and grave deficiency of service of opposite parties till toady the said consignment neither reached to the destination nor returned to the complainant after booked the consignment from first opposite party on 17.07.2009. The complainant several time approached and requested first opposite party appraised the matter for non-delivery of consignment to the M/s. Ozone Project Pvt. Ltd. Chennai. After several visit to the opposite parties’ office they have collected the claim petition on 24.07.2009 from the complainant and have given assurance to settle the claim within one week from the date of claim petition. Till today they have not settled the claim. On 20.08.2009 the second opposite party has given a letter to the complainant stating that the consignment was moved from Bangalore to Chennai by surface was lost in transit. It shows utter negligence and lapses of services of opposite parties. It is nothing but deficiency of service of opposite parties.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed version admitting that they accepted 9 boxes for transportation from Bangalore to Chennai for a charged weight of 53 kgs. However, the contents of the boxes not within the knowledge of opposite parties and value of the goods stated therein are also not relevant. Inspite of due care taken by the opposite parties the consignment booked by the complainant was lost in transit and inspite of diligent efforts made by the opposite parties to trace the same the consignment remained untraced. Hence, there was no deficiency in service or utter negligence of the opposite parties. However, it is admitted that transportation charges of Rs. 1,749/- was collected from the complainant. Immediately, after becoming aware of the non-delivery of the consignment the opposite party made hectic efforts on all India basis for tracing the consignment.<br /> 3. The complainant had handed over the consignment to the opposite parties with a specific understanding that in the event the consignment is lost / damaged the liability of the opposite parties in the event of non-delivery of the consignment is limited to Rs. 1,000/-. In this case no such higher liability was assumed or agreed to by the opposite parties. The opposite parties admit that the consignment is lost in the normal course of business transaction and the same is unintentional and not deliberate. The loss of consignment is not due to the negligence of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency of service. This Hon’ble forum may be pleased to reject the complaint.<br /> 4. The complainant and opposite parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents.<br /> 5. Arguments are heard.<br /> 6. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service of the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of cost of articles?<br /> 7. The complainant is a proprietrix of the Nirantara computers which is a computer and its accessories sales and service center and complainant is a self employed women and running the establishment for her livelihood. The complainant has booked the articles of computer which includes 9 boxes in 3 quantities for sending the articles to Chennai to her customer through the opposite parties. In total cost of the articles is of Rs. 66,924/-. The opposite parties have collected the articles from the complainant’s office on 16.07.2009. The charged weight of the articles were 53 kgs and opposite parties collected a sum of Rs. 1,749/- towards freight charges for sending the articles to M/s. Ozone Project Pvt. Ltd., No. 63, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai along with consignment and complainant has given the tax invoice to the opposite parties. The consignment had to be reached to the destination on or before 18.07.2009. Unfortunately, by the deficiency of service of opposite parties till today, the consignment neither reached to the destination nor returned to the complainant. It shows negligence of the opposite parties. When the opposite parties have collected the consignment it is the duty of opposite parties to deliver the consignment to the destination. Simply the opposite parties have given a letter stating that the consignment was lost in transit. It shows the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. In the version the opposite parties admitted that they have accepted 9 boxes for transportation from Bangalore to Chennai for charged weight of 53 kgs and collected transportation charges of Rs. 1,749/- from the complainant. When they collected the consignment and charges of the consignment it is their duty to deliver the consignment to the destination. The complainant several times approached and requested the opposite parties for non-delivery of consignment. On 24.07.2009 the complainant has given a claim petition to the opposite parties to settle the claim. But till today they have not settled the claim petition. The complainant has given her consignment along with Tax Invoice to the opposite parties. It shows that the opposite parties have full knowledge of value of the articles. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. There is no merit in defence taken by the opposite parties, since it is admitted case that the consignment not reached to the destination. Therefore, it is responsibility of the opposite parties to pay the loss and the cost of articles. The complainant being ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act their interest requires to be protected by passing order. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 66,924/- to the complainant towards cost of articles.<br /> 9. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,749/- towards transportation charges paid by the complainant.<br /> 10. The complainant is entitled for 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till date of payment.<br /> 11. The complainant is entitled for cost of Rs. 1,000/- from the opposite parties.<br /> 12. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 13. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 08TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />