FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, Member,
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that, the complainant being a partnership firm sent 2 parcels through the OP under their C/Note No. CCU500636173 dated 23/04/2019 to Nashik Autoweld System (P) Ltd. and paid Rs.540/- towards their charges. At the time of booking the parcel the complainant gave 2 copies of its invoice bearing No. Kl/19-20/042 dated 23/04/2019 and Kl/19-20/043 dated 23/04/2019 to the OP. The parcels were delivered toconsignee and the consignee informed the complainant vide email dated 30/04/2019 that 10 materials out of 20 materials were not there. The complainant informed the said incident to the OP and claimed Rs.28,850/- towards cost of goods not found on delivery. But the courier kept silent. Finally the complainant wrote a letter on 06/06/2019 to the OP for playing claim and to take up the matter. But the OP did not turn up. Hence the complaint.
OP contested the case by filing written version assailing the maintainability of the case and denying all allegations against them. The case of the OP is that the complainant have availed their service by paying require service charge and they duly performed their duty by delivering the items sent by the complainant to t the appropriate destination and the consignee duly received the items after due verification of the same. If the materials and/or items were damaged the consignee can raise objection then and there regarding the issue but that does not happen which shows that the materials and/or items have reached in good condition.Further it is stated by the OP that as a courier company their job is to deliver the materials to the right person and in this instant case they have fully performed their duties and there is no question in deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint. Ld. The complainant has taken us through the consumer complaint as also the evidence adduced of the complainant. No document is filed by the OP except the WV.
We have travelled over the documents on record and gave thoughtful consideration. Admittedly the complainant availed of the service of the OP by paying appropriate charge. Copy of the Tax Invoice No. KI/19-20/042dated 23/04/2019 shows that6 Nos of Tungsten Electrode-W-6.0mm x 150mm and7 Nos of Tungsten Rod-W-8.0mm x 150mm andTax Invoice No. KI/19-20/043dated 23/04/2019shows that 5 Nos of Moly Bar –Pure – 10 x 10 x 200mm and 2 Nos of Moly Bar – Pure – 20mm Sq. x 200mm L were sold to consignee by the complainant and despatched through the OP on 23/ 04/2019 under Consignment No.CCU500636173by paying Rs.540/- to the OP. The OP despatched the said items by AIR.Photocopy of the emaildated 30/04/2019of the consignee showing that consignee has received short quantity of (1) 2 Nos of Moly Sq 200mm x 200L, (2) 7 Nos of Pure Tungsten 8 x 150mm and (3) 1 Nos of Pure tungsten 6 x 150mm.
Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that as a courier company their job is limited to deliver the materials to the right person. But this submission appears to us as lame excuse on the part of the OP because as a customer the complainant entrust them by handing over valuables items/materials and they are the custodian of the said valuables items/materials unless or until it is delivered. The OP failed to furnish single scrap of paper or any such document regarding when or which date the said materials and/or items was delivered to the consignee. Moreover, they did not bother to reply the letter sent by the complainant. This gesture of the OP appears as deficiency of the service on the part of the OP.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that OP is liable to bear the cost of the lost items i.e.
- Moly Sq 20mm x 200L - 2 Nos @ 10,500/- = Rs. 21,000.00
- Pure Tungsten 8 x 150mm – 7 Nos @ 1050/- = Rs. 7,350.00
- Pure Tungsten 6 x 150mm- 1 Nos @ 500/- = Rs. 500.00
- Courier Charge = Rs. 540
10Nos of materials and/or items = Rs. 29,390.00
In view of the above discussion utter negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP is proved.
As such the complaint case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the instant case be and the same is allowed against the OP on contestin following terms:
- OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.29,390 to the complainant.
- OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000 to the complainant as litigation cost.
- Further OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony.
Order is to be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of passing of this order.
Copy of the judgement be supplied to the parties as per rules. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Commission forthwith for perusal of the parties.
