SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the Managing Partners of M./s Bioveda Naturals U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the price of the product and accrued interest @12% per annum till realization and with an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service on his part.
The case of the complainant in brief .
The 1st complainant is the Partnership firm and 2 to 5 are the partners of the 1st complainant’s firm. The partnership firm carrying business of beauty raw items and delivering all over India. On 26/6/2015 the complainant’s firm had sent Rose hip extract having weight of 10kg within a box to M/s Biocare Formulations, Ahmadabad vide invoice No.20 for an amount of Rs.28,600/- through the opposite party which has been rendering courier services all over India and as such the opposite party assured and undertaken the delivery of all the items sent by the complainant’s firm to the concerned addressee without causing any damage to it. Then the complainants were under impression that the goods had been delivered in time to the addressee. But on enquiry the complainants came to know that the OP had never delivered the material to the customer. Thereafter on 9/7/2015 the OP informed the complainant that the above materials was returned back and the materials were undelivered and kept in the OP’s godown. Then the complainants went to the OP’s godown and inspected the material, it was found that the materials was fully damaged in rain and it cannot be used for any purpose and became not suitable for sale. Then the complainants had suffered much mental agony and lost his good customer relationship . Then the complainant send registered letter to the Op on 11/7/15 calling upon to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and other expenses incurred by the complainant for this consignment. But the Op has neither send any reply nor paid any amount to the complainant. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party entered appearance before the commission and filed his written version .The OP contended that during transit from Bangalore airport the security officials opened the courier packet since it was in a powder form which is beyond the control of this opposite party for which the OP cannot be liable. Thereafter the materials were send back and the matter was known to the complainant also. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. The compensation claimed is without any basis and complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
1.Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?
3.Relief and costs.
The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of PW1 and marked Exts A1 to A11 documents. No oral evidence from the side of opposite party.
Issue No.1: The Complainant adduced evidence before the Commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as PW1 by opposite party . The documents Exts A1 to A11 marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainants ,the documents Exts A1, A7, and A11 clearly shows that the complainant firm had send Rose Hip extract having weight of 10 kg vide invoice No.20 dtd.26/6/2015 for an amount of Rs,28600/- to M/s Biocare Formulation Ahmadabad through the opposite party. But on 9/7/2015 the OP informed the complainant that the above materials was return back and lying in the opposite party’s godown as undelivered. Then the complainant inspected the OP’s godown and found that the materials were fully damaged in rain and it cannot be used for any purpose and not suitable for sale. On 11/7/2015 the complainant send registered notice(Ext.A3) to the Op calling up on to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. But the OP denied to pay the amount. There is deficiency of service on his part. The Op vehemently stated that there is no deficiency of service on his part and he also submits that during transit from Bangalore airport the security officials opened the courier packet since it was in powder form which is beyond the control of opposite party and the material was returned back. So he is not liable for the act of the security officials. Heard both sides.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents, evidence and arguments, we the commission hold that the complainant’s firm had sent Rose Hip extract on 26/6/2015 for an amount of Rs,28600/- through the opposite party. The Op admitted that the materials were return back in his godown and not delivered to the concerned addressee. Since he failed to do so, we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence the issue No.1 is found infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3: As discussed above the complainant ‘s firm had sent Rose Hip extract having weight of 10 kg within box to M/s Biocare Formulation Ahmadabad vide invoice No.20 for an amount of Rs,28600/- through the opposite party which has been rendering courier services and the OP assured and undertaken the delivery of the items sent by the complainant’s firm. But the OP has not delivered the same and ruined the materials in rain. So we hold that the OP was directly bound to redressal the grievances caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the price of the Rose Hip from the OP. Therefore we hold that the OP is liable to refund Rs.28,600/- to the complainant along with Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund Rs.28,600/- to the complainant along with Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Invoice 10/2/2016- Receipt
A2-26/6/15- courier receipt
A3- letter issued by the complainant
A4-copy of partnership deed
A5-2/5/17- form No.10 of vat return
A6- receipt for e-payment
A7&A9-Sales invoices
A8-20/7/17 form No.10 of vat return
A10- e-payment receipt
A11- Tax invoice
PW1- Maheshkumar.E-complainant No.2
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
