Smt.G.Vasanthakumari, President
The case of the complainant is that on 23/01/2012; the complainant entrusted the opposite party with a defective tyre 235/70 R16, used in a Scorpio vehicle, for delivering to M/s.J.K.Tyre & Industries Ltd; K.P/11/923, A.Kumara Pillai Memorial Commercial Complex, NCC Road, Ambalamukku, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram – 695005; vide Way Bill No.P6 AA 00200274, that the opposite party accepted the defective tyre from the complainant for delivering it to the consignee as door delivery and also realized Rs.100/- as freight charges and Rs.20/- stationing charges; totaling Rs.120/- from the complainant as service charges, that the complainant was entrusted with this defective tyre by one of his customers, Mr.Khalid, Karadilazhikom, Mayyanad, Kollam, who had purchased this tyre from the complainant manufactured by J.KTyres & Industries Ltd to be used in his Mahindra Scorpio vehicle, that being dissatisfied with the performance of the
(2)
type, the customer Mr.Khalid approached the complainant and demanded a replacement of the tyre, that the complainant upon contacting the C& F office situated at Thiruvananthapuram was directed to send the defective tyre to them so as to get a new tyre as replacement which in turn could be handed over to Khalid, the complainant’s customer, that upon not receiving the replacement for this defective tyre from the consignee, even after two weeks, which according to the complainant was a reasonable period, the complainant sensed that something had gone wrong, that the complainant upon contacting the consignee, was shocked to hear that the tyre so entrusted with the opposite party on 23/01/2012, was not delivered to the consignee till date, that the complainant had repeatedly contacted the opposite party over the phone including the opposite party’s office at Thiruvananthapuram and Head Office at Alleppey, but on all such occasions they did not give a proper response for this non delivery, later on the opposite party began to avoid the complainant, by this time Mr.Khalid had already frequented the complainant’s shop several times demanding the new tyre as replacement, that the customer got agitated as he could not use his vehicle without this tyre, and after two weeks of waiting, the customer lost his cool and created scenes in the complainant’s shop, that the complainant was very upset, as he was not in a habit of creating displeasure with his customers during the 20 years of his business activity, that the complainant had always maintained goodwill and cordial relationship with his customers, that finally the complainant in order to maintain harmony and healthy customer relationship with his customer Mr.Khalid refunded Rs.6500/- (Rupees. Six thousand five hundred only), that the value of the tyre, as the complainant could not supply Mr.Khalid with the replacement tyre in place of the defective tyres, that even after such considerable delay, the opposite party had failed to either deliver the tyre entrusted by the complainant to the consignee or
(3)
trace out this tyre so entrusted, that the complainant in such a situation has come to the conclusion that the tyre so entrusted with the opposite party has been lost in transit, that this act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, that the opposite party despite being contacted many times did not have the courtesy of even giving a proper explanation for this loss of article in transit to the complainant, that instead the opposite party treated the complainant with utmost disdain by becoming silent all the time, that the opposite party is a carrier for transporting valuable and costly goods of several consigners for many decades, that the loss of tyre in transit entrusted by the complainant to the opposite party was solely due to the carelessness and gross negligence on the part of the employees of the opposite party, that this negligent act of the employees of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as envisaged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, that the complainant without any other choice, caused to issue a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party dated 21/02/2012, which was acknowledged by the opposite party on 23/02/2012, that the opposite party has not replied so far, and hence this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.6500/-, the cost of the tyre which was given by the complainant to his customer, to direct the opposite party to give a compensation of Rs.5000/- for the mental agony, ridicule and insult caused by the acts of the opposite party and to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost and incidental expenses.
Opposite party served with notice but remains exparte.
Complainant filed affidavit. Marked Exts.P1 to P4.
The points that would arise for consideration are :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Compensation and cost?
(4)
As the opposite party remained absent, we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. On a perusal of the complaint, affidavit and documents produced we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Points found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.6500/-, the cost of the tyre which was given by the complainant to his customer and also directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- for the mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings.
The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 18th day of June 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
INDEX
List of documents
P1 - Copy of the way bill
P2 - Lawyers notice dtd :21/02/2012
P3 - Postal receipt dtd :21/02/2012
P4 - Acknowledgment card
