<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 07th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2808/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Javeed Ahamed,Aged about 40 years,At No.51, Muniswamappa Road,J.C. Nagara,Bangalore – 6.Advocate – Sri.S.Khwaja MohiyuddinV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Branch Manager,GATI Ltd., Mission Road,S.R Compound, S.R. Nagara,Bangalore – 560 027.Advocate – Sri.A.B.Harkunikar<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to deliver the goods entrusted it for transportation vide consignment letter dated 18.10.2007 and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP for transportation of house hold articles from Riyadh to Bangalore. OP collected the necessary service charges and promised to deliver the said consignment within a week or two. But thereafter the lapse of even two months and even till today the said consignment was not delivered to the complainant. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. The articles entrusted to OP for transportation were worth of Rs.50,000/-. Complainant even got issued the legal notice on 05.05.2008. Again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said consignment was entrusted to Cyber International Cargo, Riyadh in turn OP took over the same. Complainant has not impleaded the Cyber International Cargo. Hence complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that complainant is expected to issue the notice U/s.10 of the Carriers Act, which is mandatory but it is not issued. Further it is contended that complaint is barred by time and the consignment entrusted to OP was delivered to the representative of the complainant at Bangalore. As per the consignment note, declared value of goods was Rs.12,000/- and not Rs.50,000/- as claimed. Relief sought by the complainant is highly imaginary. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. On the perusal of the records, contents of the complaint it appears complainant availed the services of the OP for the transportation of the house hold articles from Riyadh to Bangalore. The consignment note shows that OP collected the services charges of Rs.400/-. Of course the declared value of the said articles entrusted to OP is noted as Rs.12,000/-. Even the list of the articles accompanying the consignment note also are of not worth except one or two. So under such circumstances we find the contention of the complainant that the goods entrusted to OP were worth of Rs.50,000/- has no basis.<br /> <br /> 7. The said goods are not delivered to the complainant even till today, though OP collected the service charges. According to OP they have delivered the said consignment to the relative and representative of the complainant. Who is that representative when delivered is not known. No document is produced. So this kind of untenable defence itself speaks loudly about the deficiency in service. The other contention of the OP that the complaint is barred by time also does not hold much force.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course complainant has contended that complaint is bad for non issuance of notice under Carrier Act. We don’t find force in that contention also because the present complaint is with respect to non delivery of the goods. It is not with respect to involving of loss or damages to the consignment. We have followed the basic principles and guidelines enunciated by their Lordships in the ruling cited by the OP while coming to the just conclusion in this case.<br /> <br /> 9. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, there is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss due to the non delivery of the said consignment in time. Under such circumstances he deserves certain relief. As the declared value of the articles entrusted to OP is Rs.12,000/- justice will be met by directing the OP to pay Rs.12,000/- with compensation of Rs.3,000/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />