1. The complainant sent a Sony LCD to her husband's friend at Allahabad through first opposite party courier service on 17.07.2010. She had purchased the LCD from Dubai and the cost of it was 2999 UAE Dirham equivalent to 30,000/- Indian Rupees. She paid Rs. 2000 as courier charges and a consignment note was issued to her. After a few days first opposite party telephoned her and told her that the LCD consignment has been returned from second opposite party office with a request to pack it properly in a wooden box. Complainant then packed the LCD in a wooden box and entrusted first opposite party again for sending it to Allahabad. At that time there was no damage to the LCD. After a few days the friend at Allahabad called and told them that the LCD is damaged and is not in a useable condition. The friend at Allahabad refused to take delivery of it and returned it to complainant who received the LCD from first opposite party office. It was in a damaged condition. It is alleged that the LCD was damage due to lack of care and negligent act on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2. First opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed separte version. It is admitted by first opposite party that a consignment was entrusted to first opposite party by the complainant for being sent to Allahabad. It is also admitted that the LCD was first returned by second opposite party with direction to pack properly. Complainant had again entrusted the LCD with wooden packing. It was send to Second opposite party again. First opposite party denies knowledge about the allegation that the LCD was damaged when it reached the destination and that the consignee refused to take delivery of it. That there has been no negligence on the part of first opposite party.
3. Second and third opposite parties have filed a combined version. It is admitted that first opposite party had entrusted a consignment No D. 04594605 to opposite parties for carrying it to the consignee at Allahabad. The statement that wooden packing was done as per direction of second opposite party is denied. The contentions that LCD was purchased from Dubai by paying UAE Dirham 2999 is also denied. It is admitted that opposite parties had returned the consignment to first opposite party as the same was not properly packed for the purpose of carriage. Opposite parties further submit that opposite parties were not aware of the contents of the consignment. That the consignee at Allahabd did not take delivery of the consignment for reasons best known to him. The consignment was carried back to the complainant through first opposite party and the same was delivered to the complainant in the same condition as it was handed over for carriage. That no damage is caused to the consignment when it was delivered back. That consignee had refused to accept the consignment even without verifying its contents and condition when it was offered for delivery. Opposite parties were not aware that the contents was an LCD. First opposite party is only a franchisee of second and third opposite parties and that there is no agency relationship. The relationship is on a principal-to-principal basis and that therefore opposite parties are not liable for any wrongful act done by first opposite party. There is no privity of contract between second and third opposite parties and the complainant.
4. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Ext A1 and A2 marked on her side. Even though several chances were given to opposite parties to file counter affidavit, opposite parties have neither filed any counter affidavit nor adduced any contra evidence on their side.
5. Complainant has restated her contentions in the affidavit. Ext A1 is the purchase bill of SONY LCD at Dubai. The price is shown as 2999 UAE Dirhams. Ext A2 is the consignment note No. 04594605 issued by first opposite party in favor of the complainant. It shows that opposite parties have collected Rs. 2000/- as courier charge. In Ext A2 the contents are specified / described as LCD TV.
6. The destination / address of consignee is shown as Allahabad. ExtA1 and A2 along with contentions put forward by the complainant and the admissions made by first, second and third opposite parties would establish that the case put forward by complainant is true and probable. The consignment note does not bear the signature of the consignor. Therefore any conditions of limit of liability if any, are not applicable against the complainant. Further there is no contra evidence adduced by opposite parties. It is admitted by opposite parties that the consignee refused to take delivery of the consignment. Then the document by which the consignment was refused by the consignee and reasons for refusal is available with second and third opposite parties. But opposite parties have not produced this document. Opposite parties cannot absolve from liability contending that there is no agency relationship. It is admitted that the consignment has passed through second opposite party and third opposite party. Therefore all opposite parties are liable in case of deficiency. On considering the pleadings and materials placed before us we have to hold that complainant has succeeded in establishing a case in her favor. Opposite parties are liable for breach of duty to take care. We find opposite parties deficient in service.
7. Complainant has claimed payment of the cost of LCD-TV, refund of consignment charge, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 5000/-. We consider that payment of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a from date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs. 1000 would be adequate relief to the complainant..
8. In the result, we allow the complaint and order all opposite parties to jointly and severally pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000 (Thirty Thousand only) along with interest @ 12% p.a from date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only) with in one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 13th day of June 2012
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A2
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of cash memo dated 07/07/2010 from Modern Twinkle General Trading, Dubai for 2999 U.A.E. Dirham.
Ext.A2 : Photo copy of consignment note form 3rd opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
