IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.77/2017
The Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.,: Complainant
Rep.by its Assistant Executive Engineer,
Generation Sub Division,
Thenmala, Kollam 691308.
(By Adv.K.Somasekharan Pillai)
V/S
- The Managing Director,
Corporate Office, DTDC House,
No.3 Victoria Road,
Bangalore-560047, Karnataka State
(By Adv.Binu Mathew)
- The Franchisee,
DTDC, Azad Building,
Punalur-691 305.
(By Adv.Binu Mathew)
ORDER
Sri. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LLM,President
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant, KSEB is a Public Limited Company owned by Govt.of Kerala engaged in generation and distribution of Electricity to the public in the state of Kerala. The complainant KSEB Ltd., through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Generation Sub Division, Thenmala, Kollam has approached the 2nd opposite party for shipment of one Electro Hydrolic Transducer (EHT) for repairs to Kareyn Precision Machines Ltd., Dehradun. The 2nd opposite party agreed to transport the EHT machine through 1st opposite party and on 13.07.2016 the 2nd opposite party accepted an amount of Rs.2,940/- towards transporting cost with
consignment No.D29289691 and assured the complainant that the consignment would be delivered to the consignee at Dehradun on or before 13.08.2016. But the consignment was not delivered to the consignee, even after the stipulated period of one month. On enquiry the 2nd opposite party informed that one container in which the consignment included was ‘missing’ and that the 1st opposite party is trying to trace the container. But even after weeks there was no response from the opposite parties. Thereafter on 24.10.2016 the complainant sent registered letters to the opposite parties and Cochi Regional Office of 1st opposite party enquiring about the fate of the consignment. Since there was no reply an online complaint was also sent to the 1st opposite party to that complaint, an online reply dated 07.11.2016 was received from the 1st opposite party, stating that the complaint has been registered as No.03735630 for future queries on the matter . Thereafter the 1st opposite party informed the concerned officer of the complainant over phone that the parcel was delivered to the consignee at Dehradun. But when the concerned officer of the complainant made contact with the Cochin Regional office of the 1st opposite party, it was informed that the wagon in which the parcel was included has been lost from railway. Since a long period of seven months was elapsed the consignment has not been delivered to the consignee. Hence the complainant reasonably apprehend that the consignment has been irrecoverably lost. The divergent information received from the opposite parties reveals that they were clueless about the consignment, that there was gross negligence on their part in finding out the lost consignment. As a service provider the 1st opposite party ought to have taken earnest effort in finding out the lost consignment. As such the opposite parties are liable to make good the loss sustained to the complainant.
The lost Electro Hydraulic Transducer (EHT) used by KSEB was a major component of the governing system of the Alternator. Due to the missing of the same KSEB is suffering huge loss in the generation of electricity. The cost of one
new EHT is calculated as Rs.4,50,000/- and the anticipated cost of expenditure for repairs of the EHT would be around Rs.1,00,000/- hence the depreciated value of the missing EHT is calculated at Rs.3,50,000/-. The packing and transporting charges received from the complainant was Rs.2,940/-. Thus the complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs.3,52,940/- and also entitled to get interest on the said amount @ 12% from the promised date of delivery ie w.e.f. 13.08.2016. Even though the 1st opposite party acknowledged receipt of legal notice sent by the complainant it failed to give even a reply. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. That the KSEB has no locus standi to file such a complaint before this Forum as a consumer U/s 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since it is time barred and also for want of notice as contemplated under the agreed terms and conditions of Carriers Act or Carriage by Goods Act.
DTDC Express Limited is engaged in the business as Couriers and Cargo movers and has considerable goodwill and reputation all over India and at various international destinations. The 1st opposite party is the Corporate Office of the Company at Bangalore and the 2nd opposite party is Franchisee at Punalur.
According to opposite parties an employee of KSEB had booked a Consignment weighing about 48 kgms through the 2nd opposite party on 13.07.2017 under consignment No.D 29289691 to be consigned to the Consignee, M/s.Kareyn Precision Machines Limited in Dehradun. But at the time of booking the Consignor had not declared the contents of the consignment nor produced any documents evidencing its value and also not paid any additional charges as surcharges at the rate of 2 % of the declared value to carry any valuables. The KSEB has not furnished any document to identify the name of the machinery part
to be consigned hence they have collected only the freight charges of Rs.2,940/- based upon the weight of the consignment. Again the consignee was failed to disclose to the opposite parties about the purpose for which such items were sent to the consignee. That the 2nd opposite party had never agreed to transport any Electro Hydraulic Transducer (EHT) for repairs to the consignee in Dehradun. That the present allegation of the complainant that he had booked one Electro Hydraulic Transducer (EHT) for repairs to the consignee in Dehradun but the 2nd opposite party had informed the complainant that the consignment being carried by surface transport by rail and road would normally take 1 month time for delivery at the destination in Dehradun is not true. Again the complainant never disclosed the consignment/docket number nor produced the consignor’s copy of consignment leaf containing the consignment number to prove that he had booked a consignment as alleged in the complaint. When the complainant had raised an oral complaint regarding the non-delivery of the alleged consignment at the destination the opposite parties had made thorough investigation to trace out the consignment but they could not trace out the same and they have informed the complainant that the same, is irrecoverably lost. But he could not raise a claim because the complainant had not made any declaration or payment of additional surcharge with respect to the alleged transit. Thereafter the opposite parties have received a letter that they had consigned a machine part amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- but even in that letter the complainant had not mentioned as to what is the content or the name of the alleged machine part.
The opposite parties collected the consignments for carriage subject to terms and conditions that are specifically mentioned in the consignment Note Leaf. That in the event of damage or loss to goods the liability of the opposite parties are limited to Rs.100/-. The minimum surcharge for Carrier’s Risk is Rs.50/- or 2% of the declared value for carriage whichever is higher and the same has not been paid in this case to entitle the sender to claim for the declared value. The sender had to produce documents to prove the contents and its declared value at the time of booking. But in the instant case, the consigner had not produced any documents to prove the contents in the consignment and he had not paid additional risk surcharge apart from freight charges. In the circumstances the consignor is not entitled to any claims other than the amount as mentioned in the terms of contract between the parties as mentioned in the consignment note leaf and is bound by the contract contained under the Carriers Act/Carriage by Road Act. The consignor had to declare the value of the consignment and had to pay additional charges/value for its carriage and also for risk/insurance if they have to claim for its declared/actual value. The KSEB has filed this complaint on an experimental basis and the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.3,52,940/- with interest @ 12 % or any other amounts towards compensation for the alleged loss and damages suffered and Rs.5,000/- towards costs from opposite parties. The opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost of the opposite parties.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is not maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the opposite parties are exempted from liability for the loss of the consignment as claimed in the version ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
- Reliefs and Costs?
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.P1to P8 documents.
Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and Ext D1 series. Both sides have filed notes of argument. Heard both sides.
Point No.1
One of the main contentions of the opposite parties is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to the opposite parties the complainant being KSEB Ltd has no locus standi to file such a complaint before this Forum as a consumer. Therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant would argue that the complaint has been filed under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and a complainant as defined U/s 2(1) (b) (iii) of the said Act would include the Central Government or State Government. It is further argued that Kerala State Electricity Board(KSEB) is a instrumentality of the State Government having the powers of State and hence the same comes within the definition of the complainant. It is crystal clear that the KSEB is a public Ltd company fully owned by Government of Kerala engaged in generation and distribution of electricity to the public in the State of Kerala. Hence it is an instrumentality of the State Government and would come within the definition of the State. It is further to be pointed out that even if KSEB is a public Ltd. company it is a juristic person which can very well file a complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is also to be pointed out that hiring of service of the opposite parties who are common carrier for delivering the damaged Electro Hydraulic Transducer to the consignee for repairs has no reasonable nexus with the activity carried by KSEB or any commercial purpose. If the matter is viewed in that angle the complainant KSEB come within the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Another ground urged is that the complainant has failed to send statutory notice as contemplated under Carriers Act or Carriage by Goods Act and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. It is clear from the available materials that the notice contemplated U/s 10 of the Carriers Act has been given by the opposite
parties which is evident from Ext.P2 letter P4 Advocate notice and P6 postal acknowledgment card evidencing the receipt of lawyer notice. In the light of the above materials on record we hold that there is proper notice as contemplated under Carriers Act. Therefore we find no merit in the above contention of the opposite parties. In view of the materials discussed above we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and therefore the complainant is legally entitled to file a complaint by alleging in deficiency in service against the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is perfectly maintainable. The point answered accordingly.
Point No.2
Admittedly the 1st opposite party is a service provider for shipment of consignment throughout India and the 2nd opposite party which is the authorized franchise of the 1st opposite party. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Roadways Ltd.V/s Birla Yatnaka Ltd. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1461 as held that consumer Forum have jurisdiction to entertain complaint against common carriers regarding loss of damage to goods entrusted to carrier for transportation.
Admittedly the complainant entrusted the consignment containing one machine to the 2nd opposite party on 13/07/2016 in a lightly packed wooden box as per the specifications of the opposite party which is evident from Exti.P1 bill dated 13.07.2016. The description of the consignment mentioned in Ext.P1 as machinery. The weight mentioned in Ext.P1 is not readable/legible. It is also brought out in evidence that at the time of booking the 2nd opposite party assured that the consignment would be delivered at Dehradun on or before 13/08/2016. However against the above assurance the consignment was not delivered to the consignment even after one month as agreed. On enquiry with the 2nd opposite party it was informed that one container which contained the consignment was missing and that the 1st opposite party is trying to trace out the container. Even after the lapse of several months there was no positive response from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant on 24/10/2016 sent Ext.P2 registered letter to the 1st opposite party enquiring about the fate of the consignment and copies of the letter was also sent to the 2nd opposite party and the Cochin Regional Office of the 1st opposite party. It is brought out in evidence that the opposite parties have received Ext.P2 letter but even after P2 letter the opposite parties failed to take any steps to trace out the consignment or to give a reply to P2 letter. Hence the complainant sent an email to the opposite party for which the opposite party has sent Ext.P3 email reply dated 07/11/2016 to the complainant stating that a complaint has been registered as complaint No.03735630 for future queries and that the support team of the 1st opposite party would look into the details. But even after sending P3 reply the opposite parties have not take any steps to trace out the consignment.
According to RW1 who is the Manager of the 2nd opposite party, the parcel containing machine was sent through railway. But it was transported in the vehicle belongs to the company till Cochi. However the opposite parties have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they have entrusted the parcel to the Indian Railway either at Punalur or at Cochi railway station. When the learned counsel for the complainant put a definite question whether the document evidencing the sending of parcel through railway could be produced. RW1 expressed inability to produce such a vital document by stating that the document is kept at the company and having no documentary evidence with him. It is pertinent to point out that even after making P2 complaint by the complainant regarding the loss of the consignment booked the opposite parties have not filed any complaint before the railway no documentary evidence produced to prove that fact. They have also not lodged a complaint before the railway police or before the RPF regarding the loss of consignment alleged to have been booked with the railway. The above nonfeasance of the opposite parties creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of their claim that they have booked the consignment through Indian railway. If they have actually booked the same with railway authorities they would have definitely filed a complaint before the railway authorities/railway police/RPF regarding the loss of the booked consignment. In view of the inaction of the opposite parties in lodging any complaint against the railway authorities regarding the missing of the consignment which is alleged have been booked with the railway to send to Dehradun would clearly point towards fact that the consignment covered by Ext.P1 receipt has been lost either from the custody of the opposite parties or their agents or servants due to their negligence or derelictions of duty. Hence there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently argued before the Commission that the complainant has approached the commission with unclean hands without properly declaring content and value of the consignment at the time of booking and without paying additional charge or risk surcharge to the opposite parties as per the terms and conditions of the carriage contract and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint. In view of the materials available on record we find little force in the above argument. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has further argued that the contractual relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is the consignment Note Leaf/Airway Bill bearing No.D29289691 containing the express terms and conditions of carriage, printed on the front and reverse side of the sender’s/ Shipper’s/consignors and /or Recipient/Receivers/Consigners copy which forms the contract between the parties and as the complainant would admit that the booking consignment No.D29289691 was lost at the hands of the railway the opposite party need not produce any document to prove that fact. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant has not pleaded the fact that the consignment was never entrusted to railways and therefore the complainant cannot prove any fact which is not pleaded in the complaint by adducing evidence or controverting the evidence adduced by the opposite parties. We find no merit in the above argument of the learned counsel
for the opposite party which are very strange and not based on the principles of burden of proof. Admittedly the complainant has booked the consignment as per P1 bill/receipt to be sent the consignment containing machinery EHT having the weight of 48 kg to Dehradun for repair work. The 2nd opposite party agreed to transmit EHT machine through 1st opposite party and received Rs.2940/- towards transportation cost and allotted consignment number quoted above and also assured that the consignment would be delivered to consignee at Dehradun within one month. In Ext.P1 bill/receipt nothing is stated that the opposite parties are intending to sent the consignment through railway nor orally stated that the said fact to PW2 when it was booked. Ext.P3 is a reply mail dated 07/11/2016 in response Ext.P2 email message regarding the non-delivery of the consignment. This is a first communication between the parties after the complainant knowing the fact that the article was not delivered to the consignee even after the lapse of the agreed period. In Ext.P3 reply email also nothing stated regarding the fact that the opposite party had booked the consignment with the railway and consignment might have lost during its transit to Dehradun through Railway. The opposite parties are the persons who best know the fact that the consignment was booked with the railway and it was lost during transit from Kerala to Dehradun as claimed by the opposite parties. In the circumstances by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian evidence Act, it is the duty of the opposite parties to establish that fact by making pleading and adducing evidence especially when there is having a chance of getting documentary evidence while the consignment is booked with Railway Authorities if it was actually booked. Even in the written statement there is no specific pleadings that the consignment booked by the complainant as per Ext.P1 receipt had been entrusted to railway for transporting the same to the consignee at Dehradun. But in the case the opposite parties have not even produced any record to prove that they had booked the consignment with the railway as claimed.
Since the burden of proving the fact is especially within the knowledge of the opposite parties they cannot escape from the liability by saddling the entire burden upon the complainant by stating that the complainant has not pleaded that the consignment was never entrusted to Railway and it was lost while it was transmitted to Dehradun through railway.
It is further to be pointed out that according to RW1 the document evidencing the sending of consignment through railway is with the company and even after receiving Ext.P2 complaint regarding the non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee RW1 has not lodged any complaint before the railway authority or police authority but he has only forwarded P2 letter to the branch manager. There is total inaction on the part of the opposite parties which would point towards the fact that the consignment covered by Ext.P1 receipt has been lost either from the custody of the opposite parties or from their agents or servants due to the gross negligence as alleged in the complaint. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Point No.3 & 4
In view of the finding with regard to point No.2 it is crystal clear that the consignment containing defective Electro Hydraulic Transducer (EHT) used by the complainant KSEB which was sent for repair through the opposite parties was not delivered to the consignee. According to the complainant the non-delivery of the consignment has caused huge loss to KSEB.. The depreciated value of the defective EHT cost Rs.3,50,000/- towards packing charge and transporting charge of the consignment the complainant paid Rs.2940/- with the opposite parties and thereby the complainant has sustained total loss of Rs.3,52940/- and the complainant being a public limited company of the Government of Kerala incurred huge loss in generating electricity due to the failure of the opposite parties in delivering the consignment entrusted to them to the consignee. But the
complainant has not claimed any compensation on that count. However the complainant is entitled to get the total loss of Rs.3,52,940/- as compensation for the loss of damage suffered by the complainant as claimed in ‘a’ relief. However the complainant has not sought for any separate compensation for the alleged loss caused to the Electricity Board due to the non-availability of the machinery apart from the depreciated value of the machinery plus charge paid to the 2nd opposite party as per Ext.P1 receipt. However the complainant has also sought for cost Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the opposite party as argued that there is no declaration of the contend and value of the consignment and also due to non-payment of additional surcharge for the consignment the same has been transported at the risk of the complainant. If the value of the article is declared the consigner has to fill in a declaration form with supporting invoice to substantiate value declared. RW1 has deposed that the consigner informed that consignment is damaged part and no declaration is necessary. According to the opposite parties no declaration was given by the complainant as the consignment contained damaged article. But the evidence available on record would negative the above contention of the opposite parties. In page No. 2 of the cross examination, RW1 would admit that “ Ext.P1- consignment sâ Xq¡w 48kg F¶v tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«p-v. BbXv consignment sImp-h¶ Bfp-IÄ ]d-ª-dn-ª-Xm-Wv. Rm³ declaration form sImSp-¯n-Ã. Ext.P1- coloumn-4 – machinery Fs¶-gp-Xn-bXv Rm\m-Wv. ]mÀk identify sN¿m¯ \n§Ä¡v A§s\ Fgp-Xm³ ]äptam? ]äpw. Machinery EHT machine F¶v ]d-ª-t¸mÄ Xm¦Ä kuI-c-y-]qÀhw machinery F¶v Fgp-Xp-I-bm-bn-cp-¶pthm? icn-b-Ã. Declaration form sImSp-¯n-«n-Ã.”
In view of the above admission of RW1 it is clear that the 2nd opposite party himself has filled up the details in the consignment form that he has not given the
declaration form which is kept at his office that he has written the name of the article/consignment as machinery in column 4 in Ext.P1 and is not as a scrap machinery or defective machinery. According to PW2, opposite party has not demanded to make any declaration. Without giving the declaration form to PW2 who booked the consignment it cannot be said that the consumer has not declared the nature of the article and value of the article while booking the consignment. RW1 has also no case that he has demanded any additional charge and the complainant or PW2 has refused to pay the same while booking the consignment. According to RW1 the weight of the consignment is stated as 48 kg in Ext.P1 before accepting the consignment and receiving payment. In such circumstances RW1 ought to have given declaration form to the consigner and obtained the details of the consignment whether it is electronic machinery or part of any machinery or machinery or scrap item to ascertain whether it is to be handled with care. In view of the above materials on record we find no merit in the contention of the opposite parties in their joint version that the consignment contained scrap materials which has been booked without making any declaration and paying additional charges and such a contention has been raised at the trial stage only to escape from their liability as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant.
In view of the materials discussed above it is crystal clear that opposite parties are negligent in not giving declaration form to PW2 and getting it filled up properly and not collecting additional surcharge from PW2 who brought the consignment. In the circumstances opposite parties cannot now turn round and say that they have no liability since the nature of the article has not been declared nor paid additional surcharge.
It is further argued that the original of the Consignor/Shipper copy is in the custody of the consignor and the complainant. If the complainant is not producing the original consignment note Leaf containing the terms and conditions they are avoiding the best evidence as the evidence if adduced would go against the complainant. The opposite parties on the other hand has produced and marked Ext.D1 series original of Consignment Note Leaf bearing No.D52974084 not reliable or admissible in evidence. It is further argued that the original Consigner/ Shipper copy containing the terms and conditions of carriage and risk surcharge chart is in the custody of the Consignor or the complainant. The non-production of the same will go against the case of the complainant. The photocopy produced by the complainant as Ext.P1 is not reliable since the terms and conditions of carriage issued by the opposite parties is not available on the overleaf of Ext.P1and that there is chance of manipulation and fabrication of that document. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the argument. It is an undisputed fact that one copy of the Consignment Note Leaf has been given to the consignor and another copy will be sent to the consignee and the original will be kept at the office of the 2nd opposite party where the consignment was booked. If at all consignor has not produced the copy of the consignment note spared to him and produced a fabricated copy the 2nd opposite party who is having the original could have very well produced the original of that document from his office file. Instead of producing the same the 2nd opposite party has produced Ext.D1 series form of consignment note which are subsequently printed during the year 2018 incorporating the terms and conditions favourable to the opposite parties. A close perusal of the Ext.D1 series form of Consignment Note Leaf would show that it is subsequently printed just before filing written version. Therefore Ext.D1 series Consignment Note leaves are not acceptable at all. If the complainant has not produced the real copy of Consignment Note in respect of Ext.P1 Consignment opposite parties could have very well produced a Consignment Leaf in respect of the consignment booked Just previous or subsequent booking of Ext.P1 consignment to substantiate consignment to prove that P1 receipt is not the real one issued by them and it is only a fabricated copy.
The learned counsel for the opposite party has pointed out the terms and conditions stipulated in column No.16. But there is no such terms and conditions seen stated in Ext.P1 receipt or on its overleaf. As we have stated earlier the terms and conditions stated on the over leaf of Consignment Leaf Note is a subsequent creation for the purpose of defending the case which is evident from the date of printing the D1 series form shown in the right bottom most portion of the consignment leaf as “ December 2018 release.”
Learned counsel for the complainant has argued by relying on Section 8 of the Carriers Act that the declaration contemplated U/s 3 of the said Act is not mandatory for claiming damages from its Carrier. Admittedly the opposite party has charged Rs.2,940/- for carrying the consignment. Hence it is clear that the loss or damage to the consignment would definitely exceed the value of Rs.100/-. What is the rate at which the consignment was charged for transportation and whether the amount stated in Ext.P1 included risk cover surcharge etc. are not mentioned in Ext.P1. Hence on that score also the stipulation in Section 3 of the Carriers Act 1865 is not applicable and binding on the complainant.
The learned counsel for the complainant by relying on the dictum laid down in Patel Roadways Ltd.V/s Birla Yamaha Ltd. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1461 has argued that the Consumer Forums have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against common carrier for the loss or damages to goods entrusted to carrier for transportation. In the said decision it is also held that the liability of a common Carriers under Carriers Act is that of an insurer and that position is made clear by the provisions of Section 9 by Carriers Act wherein it is specifically stipulated that in case of claim of damage for loss or deterioration of goods entrusted to the Carrier it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish negligence. In the view of Section 8 and 9 Carriers Act and also in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways Ltd.V/s Birla Yamaha Ltd we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for loss and damages suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,52,940/- along with the reasonable interest and costs of the proceedings as prayed for. The point answered accordingly.
Point No.5
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.3,52,940/- along with the interest @ 9 % p.a from the date of complaint till realization as compensation for the loss and damages sustained to the complainant on account of the non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee.
- Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as the costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
- Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to comply with above directions within 45 days from today failing which the opposite parties are directed to recover Rs.3,52,940/- along with the interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with costs Rs.5,000/- from the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 23rd day of May 2022.
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Vinu Sankar
PW2 : Binu T.R.
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Copy of the bill dated 13.07.2016 for Rs.2940/- as per consignment
No.D29289691 of DTDC Express Ltd.
Ext.P2 : Copy of Lr.No.DB1/GSDT/KHEP/2016-17/249 dated 24.10.2016
Ext.P3 : Copy of Email reply from DTDC dated 07.11.2016
Ext.P4 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 13.01.2017 issued to the
Managing Director of DTDC
Ext.P5 : Postal receipt dated 13.01.2017
Ext.P6 : Acknowledgment card showing receipt of advocate notice on 20.01.2017
Ext.P7 : Email reply from DTDC dated 04.01.2017
Ext.P8 : Invoice of Electro Hydraulic Transducer Assy dated 30.03.2017
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-
RW1 : Deded R.Jerdinand
RW2 : Rajesh Kumar
Documents marked for opposite party:-
D1 series : Original of a Standard Consignment Note Leaf bearing Consignment
Note No.D 52974084 (4 Nos.)
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
