Orissa

Rayagada

CC/142/2021

Neela Kantha Paridal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Delivery Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

C.C.CASE  NO.142/2020                                     Date. 5.8.2022.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Dr.  Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                                President.

Sri  Satis   Kumar  Panigrahi,                                           Member

 

Sri  Neelakantha  Paridal, SAI   Net  work,   office  address:  Uma Shankar  Talkies  lane,   New  Colony,   Po/Dist:  Rayagada, Po/DIST: Rayagada, State:  Odisha,  PIN NO. 765 001.   .           Cell No. 8112144844,  9438344844.                                                                                                                         … Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager,  Delhivery  Courier,  3^rd. Lane,  Kasturinagar,  Po/Dist; Rayagada, 765001    Cell  No. 7008440994.

 

2. The  Manager, Shiprocket,  Plot No. B, Khasra-360, Sultanpur, M.G.Road,  New Delhi- 110030.   Mail  address:  Packaging@shiprocket.in

                                                                                                …Opposite parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Self..

For the  O.Ps:- Set  exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The  brief facts of the case summarized here under.  That  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non delivery  of booked electric items  on the delivery  address  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

On being noticed the O.Ps    neither entering in to appear before the commission nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  03 adjournments had taken  by them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps  .  Observing lapses of around  3 months   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps . The action of the O.Ps   are  against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in  the C..P. Act. Hence the O.Ps    were set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over as  to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit  against the O.Ps  .

       Heard arguments from the   complainant..    Perused the complaint petition and the documents filed by     the   parties.

Examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

 

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant   had  booked   Electric  items   weight  5(five) Kgs  packet  on Dt.13.06.2021   bearing  Invoice  No.  Retail00029   and order  No. 1623573350096  in   the  O.P. No. 1 office  to be delivery  to   Mahabir Network Solutions Vijay  K, 828/7 Govindpuri, Kalkaji New  Delhi- 110019 (copies  of the  consignment  dtd. 13.6.2021  is available  in the file  which is marked  as Annexure-I).

For non delivery  of the  above  consignment  order  No. 1623573350096   Dt. 13.6.2021  the  complainant had sent E.mail to the O.Ps   on Dt.26.7.2021  (copies of the  same is  available  in the file which is marked as Annexure- 2).

Again  for non delivery  of the  above  consignement  the complainant  had  sent E-mail  to the O.Ps  on Dt.  26.7.2021  to know the status  of the consignment  (copies of the  same  is available    in the file which is marked  as  Annexure-3).

That on Dt.29.7.2021  the  complainant  had sent E-mail to the O.Ps  and submitted that  from the courier  he had got information  that the company  was ready  to pay Rs.5,000/- for the undelivered  parcel but   actual  price of the parcel was  Rs.75,000.00 (copies of the same  is available  in the file which is marked as Annexure-4).  But the unit price is only Rs.10,000/- mentioned in the invoice No. Retail 00029 Date. 13.6.2021. There is no any slip to show  regarding  insured  the consignment.

The O.P. No.1  on Dt.2.8.2021  had intimated  to the complainant  through  E-mail   that  the above consignment  had lost /missing/complete theft (copies of the  same is  available  in the file  which is marked  as Annexure-5).

The main grievance of the complainant  is that  he entrusted the consignment of   5(five) Kgs.  of  Electric  items  for onward  transport and delivery to the  Consignee  Mohabir Net work solutions Vijay K, Delhi.   But till date  the  above consignment  has not been  delivered  to the consignee.   Hence  this  C.C. case filed by the complainant  against the O.Ps to get    value  of the product.

For better appreciation this District Commission relied citations which are mentioned here under:-

 It is held and reported  in AIR 1984  Odisha  182 in the case of M/S. Patnaik Industries (P) Ltd. Vrs.  Kalinga Iron works and others where in the  Hon’ble   Supreme Court  observed “ The agreement between the parties does not  oust the  jurisdiction of the Court.  It may operate as an estoppels against the parties    but it can not deprive the court  of its power to do justice.  Ordinarily,  the  court  would have regard to  the choice of the parties, where however the court  whose jurisdiction has been  ousted is satisfied  that the stipulation would operate  harshly, is oppressive  in  character inequitable or unfair, for the ends of justice  it can relieve  the party  of the  bargain.  The ouster clause can be ignored.”

  In Trnas Mediterranean Airways Vrs. Universal Exports  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  where in observed  “ The protection provided under the C.P. Act to consumers is in addition to the remedies available under any other statute. It does not extinguish the remedies under another statute but provides an additional or alternative remedy”.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

By virtue of Article-300, if a competent legislation  enacts a law for compensation  or damage  for  an act done by it  or its officers in discharge of their statutory  duties.  Thus  a suit for it  would be maintainable.  No civilized  system  can  prorate    on executives  to play  with people  of  its country  and claim that it is entitled to act  in any manner   as it  is sovereign needs  of the state, duty of  officials  and right  of the citizens are to be reconciled.  So that  the role of law   in a welfare state  is not shaken  (N.Nagendra Rao & Co.  Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 1994) 6 SCC-205 /AIR 1994 SC  2663.      

The  complainant  is a  young  and   educated  unemployed  youth and doing  Net work  business   for earn his  livelihood.    The  intention of the legislature  is also clear.  In  order to mobilize  and improve the  economic  condition  of  educated  unemployed youth   in  the  remote   areas the Govt. have opened  several  schemes.   For the economic  development  the above business   is highly  necessary  for the  complainant  who  resides   in a remote  area .

It is the definite case of the complainant that  there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps in not  delivering the consignment to the consignee. There is gross   deficiency  in  service  on the part of the O.Ps.  The present complaint is filed  against the O.Ps. for recovery  of  invoice value of Rs.10,000/- along with  interest  from the O.Ps

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the complainant is entitled to get back the invoice value from the O.Ps. Hence  we allow the above complaint   in part.

To  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.

O R D E R

            In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part against  O.Ps

The O.Ps   are hereby directed to  refund Rs.10,000/- to the complainant  towards  Invoice value.

There is no order as to cost and compensation.

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days   from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties.

Dictated and  corrected by me.  

 Pronounced in the open   commission   on   5th. .     day of    August             , 2022.

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT