CC No.222.2015

Filed on 02.02.2015

Disposed on 15.02.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.222/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

             PRESIDENT

                  Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                           MEMBER

                                        V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 02.02.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to repay the sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation, to pay cost of the proceedings and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that he had booked GPS Instrument to Mr.Surendra Devadiga C/o Jayaprakash Narayana Guptha, near Chandrabali Udyan, Kasidih, Sackchi, Jamshedpur, through the Opposite Party courier on 05.11.2014 vide Consignment No.V20424294.  The worth of the said instrument is Rs.9,000/- and the same has been declared by the Complainant before sending the courier.  The Complainant had purchased the said instrument from Ansari Precision Instruments Private Limited under a tax invoice No.1450, dt.18.05.2014.  The Opposite Party had assured the Complainant to deliver the said consignment within 24 hours.  But, till now the said consignment is not delivered to the said person.  In this regard, the Complainant had called the Opposite Party over the phone and enquired about the same, but, the said Opposite Party did not respond properly.   As there was a urgency, the Complainant had sent the same though the Opposite Party courier and as the same is not reached till now, the very purpose of sending through the courier is of no use and because of Opposite Party’s negligent attitude, the Complainant has suffered a loss of more than Rs.20,000/-.  The Complainant submits that hence left with no other option, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dt.29.12.2014 calling upon the Opposite Party to deliver the said instrument to the said Surendra Devadiga within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice and also claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the damages.  The said notice is duly served on the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party have not come forward to settle the claim of the Complainant.  Hence this complaint. 

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties put their appearance through their counsel.  The Opposite Party No.1 filed his version, the Opposite Party No.2 by filing Memo adopting the version filed by the Opposite Party No.1.

In the version of the Opposite Party No.1 pleaded that the complaint is frivolous and is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The Complainant is engaged in business of commercial purpose. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable Under Section 2(d) of the Act.  The Opposite Parties have been engaged into the business of Courier and Cargo and delivering the consignments of his customers all over the country. The Complainant had entrusted the consignment bearing No.V20424294 on 05.12.2014 to be delivered to Mr.Surendra Devadiga C/o Jayaprakash Narayana Guptha, Near Chandrabali Udyan, Kailash, Sackchi, Jamshedpur.  The said consignment was detained by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Kolkatta as the Complainant has not attached the proper way bill and concerned legal documents with consignment in accordance with law.  Under these circumstances the said consignment was retained by the office of the Commercial Taxes, Kolkatta levied with sales penalty of Rs.4,765/-.  It was also made known to the Complainant and further requested the Complainant to provide proper Form 50A.  The consignment was assessed by the STO (Sale Tax Officer) and found no proper compliance was done according to law so the consignment was seized at that place.  The Government of West Bengal have introduced online services to enable the dealers to get Form 50A in order to facilitate the clearance of the consignments moving through Surface/Railways/sea-ports/Air-ports, without the signature of the assessing officer. In order to get Form 50A declaration, the registered dealer has to login to the official website of West Bengal Government by entering TIN number of the dealer to file Form 50A and thereafter the dealer has to fill the details and should also upload Invoice copy to get Form 50A generated, the dealer has to get the printout of the same and it has to be accompanied with the Consignment.  In the instant case the Complainant failed to comply the Rules of Sales Tax.  Under these circumstances, the Complainant’s consignment was detained by the Commercial Taxes, Kolkatta for want of declaration.  It is an obligation on part of the Complainant to furnish the proper Form 50A to the Opposite Party at the time of booking the consignment.  Since it was not done by the Complainant, the consignment was seized by the Sales Tax Authorities. If the Complainant had furnished proper documents i.e., Form 50A, the consignment would have been delivered to the consignee without fail. Since no proper documents were given to the Opposite Party, the consignment was not delivered to the consignee.  It is under these circumstances no negligence can be attributed against the Opposite Party for the mistake committed by the Complainant.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.     The Complainant, Sri.Nagesh Reddy has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, the affidavit of one Sri.Sujith has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the averments of the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that on 05.11.2014 the Complainant had booked GPS Instrument to Mr.Surendra Devadiga C/o Jayaprakash Narayana Guptha, near Chandrabali Udyan, Kasidih, Sackchi, Jamshedpur, through the Opposite Party courier on vide Consignment No.V20424294.  Further in order to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and also produced the copy of the consignment.  As looking into this, it is clear that the Complainant had booked the consignment on 05.11.2014 to send GPS Instrument to Mr.Surendra Devadiga                                   C/o Jayaprakash Narayana Guptha, near Chandrabali Udyan, Kasidih, Sackchi, Jamshedpur, through the Opposite Party courier on vide Consignment No.V20424294.  This evidence of the Complainant is not been disputed or denied by the Opposite Parties, therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant had purchased GPS Instrument to Mr.Surendra Devadiga under a tax invoice No.1450, dt.18.05.2014. 

8. It is further case of the Complainant that the worth of the said instrument is Rs.9,000/- and the same has been declared by the Complainant before sending the courier and he had purchased the said instrument from Ansari Precision Instruments Private Limited under a tax Invoice No.1450, dt.18.05.2014.  In support of this contention, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Tax Invoice of Ansari Precision Instruments Private Limited.  As looking into this document, under Invoice No.1450 dt.18.05.2014 the Complainant has purchased GPS Instrument for a sum of Rs.9,000/-.

9. It is further case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had assured the Complainant to deliver the said consignment within 24 hours.  But, till now the said consignment was not delivered to the said person.  In this regard, the Complainant had called the Opposite Party over the phone and enquired about the same, but, the said Opposite Party did not respond properly and issued Legal Notice calling upon the Opposite Party to deliver the instrument to the above said Surendra Devadiga within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice and also claiming damages of Rs.20,000/-.  In support of this contention, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and also produced the copy of the Legal Notice dt.29.12.2014.  As looking into this Legal Notice, it is crystal clear that the Complainant has clearly mentioned that he had booked the consignment with Opposite Party of GPS instrument worth of Rs.9,000/- to Mr.Surendra Devadiga C/o Jayaprakash Narayana Guptha, Near Chandrabali Udyan, Kasidih, Sachchi, Jamshedpur and Opposite Party promised to deliver the said consignment within 24 hours.  But, till this date the said consignment is not delivered to the said person. Even though the said notice was served on the Opposite Party, but Opposite Party fails to comply with the demand of the Complainant not issued any reply, this clearly goes to show that the Opposite Party had fails to discharge their duty.

10. The defence of the Opposite Party is that the said consignment was detained by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Kolkatta as the Complainant has not attached the proper way bill and concerned legal documents with consignment in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, the said consignment was retained by the office of the Commercial Taxes, Kolkatta levied with sales penalty of Rs.4,765/-. It was also made known to the Complainant and further requested the Complainant to provide proper Form 50A.  The consignment was assessed by the Sale Tax Officer and found no proper compliance was done according to law so the consignment was seized at that place.

11.  In support of this defence, Sri.Sujith, official of Opposite Party No.1 filed his affidavit and in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same. Except the interested version of Mr.Sujith, the Opposite Party have not placed any supporting evidence that the consignment was detained by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Kolkatta and also the Complainant has not attached the proper way bill and concerned legal documents.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party being engaged regularly in the business of courier Cargo and delivering the consignment, they have better knowledge about what are the required documents to collected from the customer at the time of booking the consignment.  In that event Opposite Party ought to have demanded for Form-50A and other documents, but there is no evidence on record to show that the Opposite Party have demand the required documents from the Complainant at the time of booking.  On the other hand, as assured by the Opposite Party to deliver the said consignment within 24 hours, but they fails to get the service by delivering the GPS Instrument to Mr.Surendra Devadiga, thereby there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, this point is held in the Affirmative.

   12. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to deliver the consignment to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.

The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the Parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 15^th day of February 2017)

       MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Nagesh Reddy, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of the Consignment receipt
2. Copy of the Declaration receipt dt.05.12.2014
3. Copy of the Tax Invoice Receipt dt.18.06.2014
4. Copy of the Legal Notice dt.29.12.2014
5. Copy of the Postal Receipt
6. Copy of the Postal Acknowledgement

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.Sujith, on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                                -NIL-

           MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT