DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 84 of 2018

Sri Bikash Debbarma,

S/O- Asit Kumar Debbarma,

7 Thakurpalli Road, Opposite TRTC CNG Station,

Krishnanagar, P.O.-Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001 .…..…...........................Complainant.

 

 

                  VERSUS

 

1). To 

The Manager,First Flight Courier Ltd.,

Sukuntala Road, Datta Market, 

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001 (Branch Office) 

 

2). The Managing Director, 

First Flight Courier Ltd.,

Vill.-RHO-PLALI PHUKN Road,

Rehabari, Gauhati-781008,

 

3).  The Anamika Gold Pvt. Ltd.

H.G. B. Road, Plaza Market,

Agartala, P.O.-Agartala,

P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura,

Pin-799001 …............................................Opposite parties. 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Anjan Kanti Pal,

  Advocate. 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Richard Sinha,

  Sri Prasenjit Saha,

  Advocates.   

For the O.P. No.2 : None appears.    

For the O.P. No.3 : In person through his Authorized   Representative. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 01/07/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Bikash Debbarma, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.P. Nos.1&2.  

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant  on 11/08/2018 purchased one silver made Ganesh Idol from the shop of the O.P. No.3 on payment of Rs.29,870/- for his daughter who is residing at Gorakhpur, Uttarpradesh. The Complainant accordingly on 13/08/2018 booked the Ganesh Idol  along with some articles namely one chocolate, two numbers of frock, one number of colour pencil packet, one drawing book and one photo of Goddess Durga with the Manager,First Flight Courier Ltd.,O.P. No.1 vide consignment No. N 90100951386 dated 13/08/2018  by paying Rs.2,150/- to the O.P. No.1 being the service charges for sending it to his daughter, residing at Gorakhpur, Uttarpradesh. 

According to the complainant the articles were handed over to the O.P. No.1 in open(unsealed) condition at the time of booking the same. The O.P. No.1 arranged packing of the same before the parcel being transshipped to the destination. 

The Complainant has stated in his complaint that at the time of delivery of the booked items(parcel) at the destination the employee / staff of the O.P. Nos.1&2 approached the daughter of the Complainant with broken Ganesh Idol and for that reason the daughter of the Complainant had refused to receive the parcel. The daughter of the complainant intimated the matter to her father. 

Being displeased with the services rendered by the O.P. Nos.1&2, the Complainant through his engaged counsel sent legal notices to the O.P. Nos. 1&2 on 26/09/2018 demanding to arrange for delivery of a New Silver Ganesh Idol at her daughter's residence within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The O.P. No.1 in response to the notice gave an unsatisfactory reply to the Complainant on 27/10/2018. The O.P.No.2 however did not give any reply.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct and services rendered by the O.P. Nos. 1&2, the Complainant filed the instant complaint claiming Rs.29,870/- being the price of Ganesh Idol, Rs.1 lac for suffering mental agony and harassment and Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation, thus in total Rs.1,59,870/- from the O.P. Nos.1,2&3.   

Hence this case.                     

2. The O.P. No.2 though received notice from the Forum but did not turn up to contest the case. So the case proceeded exparte against the O.P. No.2. 

The O.P. No.1 has resisted the case of the Complainant by filing written statement and has denied deficiency of service on his part. The O.P. stated in his written objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per clause 25 of the consignment note wherein it has been categorically mentioned that adjudication of such case should be at Mumbai only. Moreover, as per clause 25 of the consignment note if there is any dispute between the consignor and the First Flight Courier Ltd., the O.Ps., the dispute should be adjudicated by Arbitrator. The O.P. No.1 has thus asserted that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. 

The O.P.  has however in his written statement admitted about the booking of the parcel from the Complainant for transhipment of it to Gorakhapur, Uttarpradesh where Complainant's daughter is residing. According to the O.P. No.1, the consignment was brought at  his office counter in sealed packed conditions and that the Complainant did not make any declaration with regard to the articles and as such the O.P. No.1 was quit in dark about the contents of the consignment. The O.P. No.1, however enquired from the complainant about the contents and their value. The Complainant in reply stated that the contents were very simple, cheap and the articles in side the consignment need not be insured. The O.P. No.1 also stated in his written objection that the consignment reached at the destination properly but the consignee  i.e. Dr. Moutushi Debbarma, daughter of the Complainant had refused to take delivery of it alleging that the Idol in side the consignment was broken. The O.P. further stated in his written statement the consignee did not open the consignment before coming to the conclusion the article in side it was broken. According to the O.P. No.1 utmost care and attention had been taken before the consignment had reach at the destination safely. The O.P. No.1 denied breaking of Idol in side the consignment at any point time. 

The O.P. No.1 also stated in his written objection that the consignment ultimately returned to Agartala and that thereafter the staff of the O.P. No.1 went to the house of the Complainant for returning the same but the Complainant had refused to accept it. So, the consignment is still lying in the Office of the O.P. No.1. 

The O.P. No.1 has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint against him taking the plea that the O.P. did not commit any deficiency of service towards the Complainant. 

The O.P. No.3 has appeared before the Forum on receiving notice and through his Authorized Representative submitted brief W.O. admitting that the Complainant had purchased one Silver made Ganesh Idol in intact and good condition from the shop of the O.P. No.3 namely the Anamika Gold Private Ltd., Agartala on payment of Rs.29.870/- against invoice No.59/AGPL dated 11/08/2018.

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 04 documents namely Copy of the Original Legal Notice dated 26/09/2018 addressed to the O.Ps., Original consignment of the O.P. Courier dated 13/08/2018, Original  Legal Notice in the name of the O.P. No.2 sent by speed post which has been returned to the Complainant with endorsement recorded by the postal staff as “refused” by the addressee . The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. 

The O.P. No.1  has examined himself as witness. He has not produced any document in support of his case. 

The O.P. No.3 has not adduced either and oral documentary evidence. 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

   (I). Whether  there was  any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  We have heard arguments from the Advocates of the Complainant and that of the O.P. No.1. The Advocate for the Complainant while arguing the case has referred to two decisions, one rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil No.5611 of 1999 (Economic Transport Organisation VS M/S Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Another) and another rendered by the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.49 of 2012, dated 01/05/2012 (M/S Track On Courier Private  Vs Rajneesh Gupta) . It is evident from the case record that there is no denial by the O.P. No.1 about booking of the parcel containing the alleged Silver made Ganesh Idol etc. by the Complainant with the O.P. No.1 on 13/08/2018 on consideration of Rs.2,150/- for transhipment of it to the consignee namely Dr. Moutushi Debbarma, daughter of the Complainant who is residing at Garokhpur, Uttarpradesh. From the pleadings as well as the evidence on record it is established that the parcel though had reached at the destination yet the consignee had refused to receive it taking the plea that the Silver made Ganesh Idol in side the parcel was broken. 

  Admittedly, the daughter of the complainant i.e. the consignee did not open the parcel but abruptly she came to the conclusion that the Ganesh Idol was broken. As we know Silver is a strong metal and its durability is not subjected to damage easily. So we are surprised how the Complainant's daughter came to such a conclusion without  opening the parcel that the Silver made Ganesh Idol in side the parcel was broken. Moreover, Complainant's daughter has not been cited as witness by the Complainant to establish such fact. According to us the evidence adduced by the Complainant about his assertion that the Ganesh Idol got broken while in transit is only a hear say evidence. On the other hand the plea of the O.P. No.1 that there is no deficiency of service on his part towards the complainant regarding the transhipment of the parcel to the consignee appears to us convincing and trustworthy as the parcel which was booked by the Complainant with the O.P. No.1 has actually reached at the destination safely and in good condition as claimed by him. 

  We find that the Complainant's daughter  merely on assumption had refused to receive the parcel  taking the plea that the Ganesh Idol which was in side the parcel was broken but she did not take the trouble to unpack the parcel to get the matter confirmed. We also find that the Complainant has failed to produced conveyancing and cogent evidence to establish that Silver made Ganesh Idol was broken while it was being in transit.

  According to us the Complainant's daughter ought to have opened the parcel in presence of the delivery staff of the O.P. Nos.1&2 when the parcel was brought before her for delivery and that if she found any damage had occurred to the Ganesh Idol then she would have refused to receive the parcel. On the other hand the Complainant's daughter merely on assumption / presumption had refused to accept the parcel taking the plea that the Ganesh Idol in side the parcel was broken. 

  The citations referred to by the Learned Advocate for the Complainant do not appears to us applicable to the case in hand as the factual matrix of both the referred cases are distinguishable. 

    Hence, we are not inclined to rely on those case laws. 

      In view of discussion made above, we find hold that the Complainant has failed to make out a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. Nos. 1&2. We find that there is no proven facts to draw conclusion that the O.P. Nos.1&2 committed deficiency of service towards the Complainant. 

    In the result,  the complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 

    Before parting  with the case, we deem it proper to direct the complainant to take back the parcel containing the articles which had been booked by him with the O.P. Courier, from the O.P. No.1 within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment. 

      It is made clear that if the complainant has failed to comply with the above direction, the O.P. No.1 is at liberty to dispose of the contents of the parcel as per law.   

    

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.