KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 297/2003

JUDGMENT DATED: 02-12-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU                :PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                      : MEMBER

1.         Gati Cargo Management Services,

Gati Corporation Ltd., Head Office,

293, M.G.Road, Secundrabad,

PIN -500 003.

                                                                                    : APPELLANTS

2.         The Branch Manager,

Gati Cargo Management Services,

T.C.38/355, Branch Manager,

Sarojini Nivas, Kochar Road,

Chenthitta, TVPM.

(By Adv. Sri.Dani. J. Paul & D. Lijin Kumar)

            Vs.

The Managing Director,

Muthoot Hotels & Tourism Ventures Pvt Ltd., : RESPONDENT

Punnan Road, Near Government Secretariat,

TVPM.

(By Adv.Sri. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/Carriers who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- it was the value of electronic locks with future interest at 14.5% and to pay Rs.50,000/-( sic.Rs.5000/-) as compensation and Rs.1000/-, as cost in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.662/00.

2. The case of the complainants/hotels is that they had dispatched 6 number of imported electronic locks to be delivered at Mumbai for pre installation servicing on 23/9/2000.  The above locks were required for affixing in the new block of the complainant’s hotel which was to be inaugurated.  There was considerable delay in delivering the article.   The complainant sent a legal notice on 18/10/2010 as by the time the consignment was not delivered.  It took about 40 days for the delivery of the locks at Mumbai.  The above delay has resulted in delay the completion of the Star Hotel Project and the loss on the above amount worked out to Rs.50,000/-.  The locks delivered were irreparably damaged.  The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation on this account.  A sum of Rs.25,000/- is also claimed as compensation for mental agony.

3. The respondents have filed version denying the contention that the locks delivered were in a damaged condition.  It is further contended that the delay was occasioned as the Octroi authorities withheld the articles for want of proper records.  It is only after producing the adequate records the Octroi authorities released the goods.  It is also stated that the delay was also on account of the failure of computers (in the office of the opposite party) and Pooja holidays.  It is also stressed that the articles entrusted were already damaged ones and sent to Mumbai for repairs and servicing as is evident from the letter of the MD of the complainant dated:25/10/2000.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs1 and 2, Exts.P1 to P9 and D1.

5. The Forum has observed that the amount claimed towards loss on account of the wasted inauguration expenses of the hotel is exorbitant.  The Forum has also observed that the inauguration was postponed just on account of the delay to deliver the electronic locks, is a false story.  Hence the Forum has found the compensation in this regard at Rs.5,000/- in the preceding paragraph to the last paragraph.  However in the last paragraph the amount is mentioned as Rs.50,000/-.  It appears that from the observations in the preceding paragraph the amount is Rs.5000/- and not Rs.50,000/-.  The Forum has arrived at a figure of Rs.70,000/- as the cost of locks as matter of guess work as no documents were produced with respect to the price of the locks.

6. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that no objective evidence with respect to the price of the locks was produced.  It is also pointed out that the the locks were imported ones is mentioned only in the complaint and not in any of the documents including the lawyer notice and the letter sent subsequently.  It is also contended that Ext.D1 letter of the MD dated:25/10/2000 mentions that articles has been sent to Mumbai for repairs and servicing.  Hence the word repair indicated that the articles were already damaged.  It is also contended that there is no independent evidence as to the fact that the locks were delivered in a damaged condition.  There is no commission report.  Further the articles were not produced before the Forum also.  It is contended that the articles were damaged is incorrect.

7. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that the explanation for the delay stands not established.  According to him the locks were new imported electronic locks and the same were sent to Mumbai for only pre installation servicing.  It was also pointed out that the opposite parties have not sent any reply to the lawyer notice and Ext.P8 letter.

8. We find that there is no explanation from the side of the complainant as to Ext.D1 letter which is dated 25/10/2000.  Ext.D1 letter is that of the Managing Director mentioned that the consignment is sent for repairs and servicing and not for sale.  As per Ext.D1 dated:25/10/2000, the consignment was despatched on 23/9/2000.  The case of the opposite party/appellant that Ext.D1 was obtained for getting clearance from the Octroi authorities appears probable in the light of Ext.D1, the genuineness of which has not been disputed by PW1.

9. As to the case of the appellant that the goods were already damaged relying on the words used in Ext.D1 letter and that it has been sent for repairs and servicing stands not properly contradicted  although it is contended that repair need not indicate that the goods were damaged beyond repairs.  At least there has to be some mal function of the items as the complainant cannot contend that the words were used to get the articles released from the Octroi authorities as the complainant has not produced any documents with respect to the payment of customs duty etc.  Further the non production of the articles involved has not been explained.  Hence the case of the complainant cannot be accepted as such.  It has also to be noted that Ext.D1 has not been properly proved.  The price of the locks claimed in Ext.P7 lawyer notice is Rs.1,32,000/-.  The complainant has scaled down the same to Rs.75,000/- in the complaint and in Ext.P8 letter.  The counsel for the appellant has explained the reason for not responding to Ext.P8 letter that the parties are communicating over telephone mainly as is evident from Ext.P2 letter.  In the circumstances it appears to us that some damages might have been caused to the articles involved and the same were repaired and installed.  In the circumstances we find that a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be adequate.  The direction to pay another sum of Rs.5000/- is set aside.

In the result, the order of the Forum is modified as follows:-

The opposite parties/appellants will pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint ie 28/12/2000.  The appellant would also be liable to pay Rs.1000/- as cost as ordered by the Forum.  The amounts are to be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 2/12/2010, the date of this order.

Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU    :PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER

VL.