ORDER
Dated: 17/09/2012
The facts in brief of the case are that on 12.02.2008 one Shri Bari Sawkmie hereafter referred to as the Complainant booked two packets of Handicraft products through M/S GATI Ltd, Shillong hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party or OP and paid `784/- for delivery to Delhi Haat, New Delhi. The handicraft products were meant to be sold and displayed at the Expo held at Delhi Haat, New Delhi from 12.02.2008 till 25.02.2008. The consignment did not reach on time and the Complainant on 20.02.2008 enquired from the Customer Care of the OP which told him that the docket number was invalid. However when enquired from the OP at Shillong it was confirmed that the goods were booked on 12.02.2008 and that it will reach Delhi on 20.02.2008. When the goods did not reach on due date, the Complainant again enquired from the Customer Care which told him that the goods were booked only on 20.02.2008 and will reach Delhi only after 25.02.2008. The Complainant then talked to the Manager of the OP at Guwahati who was willing to settle the matter and to compensate for all the losses. The goods never reach its destination while the Expo was going on, so on 25.02.2008, Complainant wrote to the OP to return the goods back to Shillong since the Expo was already over and the OP has to compensate for all losses, mental agony and harassment. When the OP did not respond to the letters of the Complainant, on 18.04.2008 he wrote another reminder since the packet of goods has not reach Shillong. On 12.05.2008 a legal notice was issued against the OP demanding the return of the entire consignment along with compensation claiming `50,784/-. The consignment finally reach Shillong after a lapse of many months and the handicraft products were already spoiled and damaged and could no longer be sold in the market anymore. Since the OP did not respond to the complaints of the complainant, he preferred to file this case.
Notice was issued to OP who also filed its show cause and stated that the aforesaid two numbers of packets could not be delivered on due date at Delhi Haat due to unavoidable circumstances and the Manager of the OP, Mr K.C. Shukla, communicated over the telephone with the Complainant with an intention to settle the matter. Further OP denied that the articles were spoiled and damaged and that the Complainant had not submitted any report from any authority about the damage of the booked consignment. OP further contended that they are not responsible for any loss or damage but will pay only the cost of courier charges of ` 784/-. The OP relied on the terms and conditions as laid down in the docket form and contended that the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the OP as there were no sufficient evidence and documents from proper authority.
In the rejoinder filed by Complainant, he stated that since the goods were not delivered on time, he had requested many times to the OP to return the goods but it failed to do so until a Pleader’s notice was issued and that only after that the OP took the initiative to return the goods. Complainant submitted a letter dated 20.04.2008 wrote by the Assistant Manager, North Eastern Handicrafts and Handlooms Development Corporation Ltd, who informed the Complainant to collect the handicraft goods and also informed that the goods were damaged and no longer fit for display or sale in the emporium due to overstay in the packets. In this regard the Complainant contended that he had incurred a huge loss and damages. He also stated that he himself went to Delhi for displaying the goods at the Expo where he had also incurred expenses on travelling, hence the OP are bound to compensate all the loss and prayed before this Forum to allow other relief as well.
Both the parties also filed their written arguments also. In the written argument filed by Complainant, he reiterated the facts as set out in the complaint petition as well as in the rejoinder. In the written argument filed by OP, it stated that the value of the Handicrafts was `4,670/- and the same was written on the docket paper. OP also mentioned that the docket issued to the customer were strictly on the basis of declaration given by customer and agreed terms and conditions for which the OP shall not be responsible for any wrong declaration. The OP also denied the claim made by Complainant for the damaged and mentioned that they are ready to refund only the booking fee of ` 784/- to the Complainant.
After perusal of the evidence on record and other material facts the point that falls for consideration in this case is: Whether there is any deficiency in service, and if so, how much Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint.
This Forum after considering documents filed by both parties is of the opinion that, Firstly, there is no dispute that the consignment were booked on 12.02.2008 through the OP to be displayed at the Expo at Delhi. OP has admitted that they had failed to deliver the same on the reason of ‘unavoidable circumstances’. In the written argument the OP has stated that M/S GATI considers the entire North East region as geographically different and disturbance area and the Forum is not at all convinced to consider this matter. Though no assured date of delivery was mentioned in writing, in the normal circumstances the courier service would at the most takes 36 hours or 2 days to deliver the handicraft products. Even if the OP had got delayed by 4 days to deliver, the Complainant would have got the opportunity to display his handicraft works for the remaining days, but it failed to deliver at all and till the Expo got over and Complainant could not display his works even for a single day. Thus this Forum is of the opinion that this is purely an act of negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Secondly, the OP had also failed to return back the items to Shillong even after many requests by the Complainant vide letter dated 25.02.2008, 18.04.2008 till issuing of Pleader’s notice dated 12.05.2008. it was only after that the OP took steps and send the handicraft products through North Eastern Handicrafts and Handlooms Development Corporation Ltd who informed the Complainant vide letter No. HHDC/NETE/2007-08 dated 20.08.2008 to collect the items delivered by GATI (OP) at their Office and certified that the handicraft products are damaged and no longer fir for display and sale in the emporium.
We find that the letter issued by North Eastern Handicrafts and Handlooms Development Corporation Ltd is enough evidence to prove the damage to the goods and also a genuine authority to certify the same. Due to negligence of the OP the goods remained in the packet for almost 6 months thereby causing complete damage to the handicraft products.
We therefore direct the OP to refund to the Complainant ` 4,670/- being the value of the handicraft as declared by him at the time of booking of the goods and ` 784/- being the courier charges. We further direct the OP to pay a compensation for deficiency in service an amount of ` 20,000/- and ` 10,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony to the Complainant. We also direct the OP to pay the total amount of `` 35,454/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Case disposed off.
