Date of Filing: 16.04.2010<br /> Date of Order: 07.12.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 857 OF 2010<br /> Syed Mohammed Ali<br /> M/s. Dawn Sanitary Stores<br /> No. 113, 1st Floor, House of Lords<br /> St. Marks Road, Bangalore 560 001 Complainant<br /> V/S¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬<br /> The Regional Manager<br /> Mr. Gordon<br /> ON DOT Courier & Cargo Ltd.<br /> No. 103, HBCS, Amarjyothi Layout<br /> Koramangala Ring Road<br /> Domlur, Bangalore 560 071 Opposite Party<br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that on 19.06.2009 he has sent goods valued at Rs. 8,526/- through opposite party courier service. The material has not been reached to the consignee even after 8 months. It is the careless and negligent act of the opposite party and they are responsible for the loss sustained by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss sustained. <br /> 2. The opposite party filed version admitting that complainant had sent consignment on 19.06.2009 through opposite party. The value of the consignment has not been declared by the complainant. The liability of the opposite party is limited to Rs. 100/-. Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for deficient service? <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The complainant has produced courier receipt dated 19.06.2009. He has paid Rs. 80/- to the opposite party as freight charges. The complainant has produced bill of the articles sent through courier bill dated 19.06.2009 which is for Rs. 8,526/-. The complainant has sent material and spare parts through the courier to be delivered to Sr. B.R.C. Govindarajan, Salem. The complainant has produced letter of Sri B.R.C. Govindarajan, Consignee dated 19.08.2009 wherein he has clearly stated that he has not received consignment as per the bill dated 19.06.2009 for Rs. 8,526/- and requested the complainant to do the needful. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant has booked consignment through opposite party courier service. It is also admitted fact that the parcel had not reached to the consignee. As per the defence version it is clear that the opposite party has failed to deliver the consignment to the consignee. Therefore, it is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Admittedly, the opposite party has not produced record or document to show that the document has reached the consignee. The opposite party has not taken the defence that consignment has been delivered to consignee. So under these circumstances it is clear case of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The only defence taken by the opposite party is that the liability of the opposite party is limited to Rs. 100/-. This defence cannot be accepted at all. Though liability of the courier service is Rs. 100/- under the statute but the opposite party cannot escape from their liability or responsibility to suitably compensate the complainant for the loss sustained. The complainant has proved and established that he had sent material worth Rs. 8,526/- and the consignment did not reach the consignee. Therefore, the complainant definitely entitled for compensation. The opposite party has filed defence version. On perusal of the defence version the same has not been signed by the opposite party or by any authorised representative. The defence version has been signed by advocate for the opposite party. Such kind of defence version is not a defence version under the eye of law. The complainant definitely proved his case by producing receipt of opposite party and this receipt establishes that he has paid Rs. 80/- as service charge and the complainant has also produced cash bill of the materials. He has also produced letter of consignee stating that consignment has not been reached to him. All these things clearly establish grave negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed. In the result I proceed to pass the following: <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 9,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service. <br /> 7. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present litigation. <br /> 8. The opposite party is directed to send the total amount of Rs. 10,000/- directly to the complainant by way of D.D. / Cheque with intimation to this forum within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 9. The opposite party is directed to send the amount directly to the complainant by way of D.D. / cheque with intimation to this forum.<br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />