Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/372

M/s Ind Aroma rep by its one of the partner Kum. Aruna S rao K - Complainant(s)

Versus

The MAnager VRL Logistics ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 23.02.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 22.01.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.372/2015

DATED THIS THE 22^TH JANUARY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

M/s.IND Aroma,

Rep. by its one of the Partner Kum.Aruna S Rao K,

aged about 31 years,

office at no.83, 4^th main,

6^th cross, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-18.

 

By Adv.Sri.K.H.PradeepKumar     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. The Manager,

VRL Logistics ltd.,

Registered office at NH-4, Bengaluru road,

Varur,

Hubballi-581207.

 

2. The Manager,

VRL Logistics ltd.,

Registered office at

5^th main, 9^th cross,

T.R.Mill, Chamarajpet,

Bengaluru-18.

 

By Adv.Sri.Aravind M Neglur

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties no.1 & 2 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 & 2 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to refund the damage amount of Rs.28,560/- with interest at 18% from 10.09.14 till the date of payment and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that the Op is the registered transport company under the name and style of VRL logistics ltd., It is the case of the Complainant that he had booked for transportation of 1 barrel of Hexyl Salicylate (hereinafter referred as the said barrel) from SBCCP-Bengaluru - Chamarajpet to JPR – Jaipur (RJ) under the way bill no.463937114 dtd.10.09.14 from the Op company. The Complainant further submitted that while transporting the barrel from Bengaluru to Jaipur the barrel was damaged and the raw material spilled in transport. The actual weight of the barrel at the time of booking was 210 kg. but at the time of delivery its weight was 138 kg. the loss of raw material is about 72 kg. The Complainant further submitted that at the time of delivery of barrel, the consignee noticed that the barrel was damaged and request the Op to issue damage certificate by writing letter. The Complainant further submitted that on request letter, the Op has issued a damage certificate. On the basis of damage certificate the consignee has raised debit note against the Complainant for sum of Rs.28,560/-. The Complainant further submitted that after receiving debit note from the consignee, he has wrote a letter dtd.13.10.14 to the Op to reimburse of damage caused in transport. The Complainant further submitted that the Op has refused to reimburse the damage caused in transport by its reply letter dtd.30.10.14. The Complainant has issued a legal notice on 19.01.15 for claim amount and also for damages. In para 2 of legal notice, the barrel weight at the time of booking wrongly mentioned as 200 kg. likewise at the time of delivery its weight was 174 kg. and the loss of raw material is about 26 kg. instead of the actual weight of the barrel at the time of booking was 210 kg. but at the time of delivery its weight was 138 kg. the loss of raw material is about 72 kg. The Complainant further submitted that the Op has issued untenable reply dtd.30.01.15 & refused to indemnify the claim amount and thereby trying to escape from its liability.  The damage has occurred due to the rash, negligence and mishandling by the transporter. There are big holes on the barrel shows the poor attitude of carelessness of the Op. the Complainant is the victim of negligent act of the Op.no. As such the Op is liable to pay the damages for shock, pain, physical and mental agony. Hence this complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Ops did appear before this forum and filed version by denying the contents of the complaint except booking of a consignment of barrel contain chemicals from Bengaluru to Jaipur. It is the specific case of the Op that the Complainant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of production, manufacture and sale of chemicals that are raw materials used in aroma industry. A manufacturer doing commercial activity cannot be a consumer. Therefore the Complainant is not consumer as defined under CP Act. The Op further submits that the Complainant being the consignor had booked the consignment in favour of M/s.Surabhi Fragrance of Jaipur, Rajastan. It was transported & delivered to the consignee at Jaipur in good condition on 25.09.14. The consignee has acknowledged the receipt of the consignment in good condition and paid charges of Rs.1,725/- without any demur. The consignee at no point of time did report as to the lesser quality of the contents of the barrel. The conduct and acts of the consignee disproves the allegations of the Complainant made in the complaint. The Op further submits that the conditions mentioned in the way bill form contract between the consigner and transporter. It is one of the terms of the contract that the consignment is booked at owner’s risk. The owner having undertaken to face the risk, cannot complain later. The Op further submit that had there been any discrepancies such as damage, short delivery etc., in the consignment to the consignee, the consignee would have insisted for an endorsement to that effect on the way bill or at least the consignee would have accepted the consignment in protest. But in the present case the consignee has not made any remarks nor did the consignee accept the barrel under protest. The consignee in law is the agent of the consignor. The consignor by his conduct through its agent has accepted that the material that was delivered in Jaipur in good condition. That being the legal position, the Complainant cannot now take a different stand before this forum to claim compensation.  The Op further submits that he had suitably replied to legal notice issued by Complainant. The Op further denied that Kum.Aruna S Rao has no authority to verify the contents of the Complainant in the absence of proper authority. The Op further submits that he is liable to make good any loss alleged to have sustained by the Complainant, the same be limited to ten times the proportionate freight paid by the consignee in view of such a limitation on the liability fixed u/s 10 of Carriage By Road Act 2007 r/w Rule 12 of Carriage By Road Rules 2011.  Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. To substantiate the case, one of the partner of the Complainant filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-A1 to A9. The AGM of Ops filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-B1 to B3. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have already stated the brief facts of the complaint filed by the Complainant as well as the version filed by Ops. The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleadings of the parties goes to show that the Complainant had booked for transportation of 1 barrel of Hexyl Salicylate from SBCCP-Bengaluru - Chamarajpet to JPR – Jaipur (RJ) under the way bill no.463937114 dtd.10.09.14 from the Op company. It is also not in dispute that the actual weight of the said barrel at the time of booking was 210 kg but at the time of delivery its weight was 138 kg, so the loss of raw material is about 72 kg. This fact is proved by the Complainant by placing reliance on the contents of damage certificate issued by Op marked as Ex-A4. Ex-A4 clearly disclose the barrel weight which is reduced from 210 kg to 138 kg and the loss is about 72 kg. In this context, we find there is deficiency of service on the part of Op.

 

          8. Now the question that crops up for our consideration is, how the damage is to be assessed. In this context, we placed reliance on the contents of Ex-B2 which is the receipt issued by Op, wherein the declared value is assessed as Rs.71,400/- and the fright charges is assessed for Rs.1,601/-. Now, we will have to ascertain the value for the loss of 72 kg of the Hexyl Salicylate, it comes to Rs.24,480/-. In this context, except the self-serving say of the Complainant nothing is produced. But as per the terms & conditions of the Op with regard to the shortage, if any found is, ten times of the fright charges to be paid. So, it comes to Rs.1,601/- X 10 = Rs.16,010/-. Hence, this forum is of opinion that the Complainant is entitled to be compensated for an amount of Rs.16,010/- by way of paying the said amount to him by Op for the loss of 72 kg of the Hexyl Salicylate. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

9. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

 

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed in part.  

 

          2. Op.no.1 & 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.16,010/- for the shortage of 72kg of Hexyl Salicylate within six weeks from the date of this order failing which it carries interest at the rate of 8% till the realization. The cost of litigation is fixed Rs.2,000/-.     

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 22^th January 2018).

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Kum.Aruna S Rao, who being one of the partner of the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Way bill dtd.10.09.14
Ex-A2	Photographs of the Barrel 9 in numbers
Ex-A3	Letter by consignee
Ex-A4	Damage certificate dtd.25.09.14 by Op
Ex-A5	Debit note by consignee against Complainant
Ex-A6	Letter dtd.13.10.14 to Op
Ex-A7	Reply letter dtd.30.10.14
Ex-A8	Legal notice dtd.19.01.15
Ex-A9	Reply notice dtd.30.01.15

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.S.B.Venkatesh, who being the AGM of Ops was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Ex-B1	Way bill dtd.10.09.14
Ex-B2	Delivery cash receipt dtd.10.09.14
Ex-B3	Reply dtd.30.01.15

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT