Complaint filed on: 13-10-2010
Disposed on: 07-02-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2360/2010
DATED THIS THE 7th FEBRUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
M/s. Mahedra Kumar Kothari,
Son of Sri.Premchand Kothari,
Aged about 45 years,
Prop: M/s. Kothari Silks,
No.5, 26th Cross, Cubbonpet,
Bangalore-02
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. Tridev Courier,
38/1, 6th Main, 10th Cross,
Sampangiram Nagar,
Bangalore – 27
2. M/s. Tridev Express Cargo,
Reptd by its General Manager,
R.O. No.13, Ground Floor,
Tarachand Dutta Street,
Kolkatta-700 073
O R D E R
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.
Grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OP for short] in brief is that, the complainant had booked a consignment from Bangalore to Rourkela through Op1, vide consignment note no. 208599 dated 20/5/2010 which consists 29 art silk sarees cost Rs.22,500/-. The complainant wanted to send this parcel to M/s Satyanarayana Sajjan Kumar of Rourkela under invoice no. 4151. The complainant booked the said consignment to the party through Op1, The consignee shall bear the transportation expenditures under “to pay basis”. Hence the complainant had not paid anything to Op1 while booking the parcel. When consignee has not received the booked parcel through Ops, Complainant enquired with Op1 and requested several times, redirect the consignment to complainant/consigner but Ops have failed to comply the claims of the complainant. Even the complainant had also sent the reminder letter to Op2 dated 1/7/2010 demanding either to rebook the consignment without any demurrages or to pay the amount along with loss as damages. Though Ops acknowledged the letter, Ops failed to comply the demand made by the complainant. The complainant alleging that Ops are negligent to perform their duties, Ops neither rebook the consignment nor paid the amount of the sarees. Hence, complainant approached this forum seeking direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.22,500/- along with damages of Rs.25,000/- for his mental agony, loss incurred due to non-delivery of goods.
2. Notices sent to both Ops were duly served on them. Op1 and 2 represented through their counsel and filed their statement of objection. In their version, Op contended that the complainant had disclosed the amount of goods worth Rs.10,500/- which had been booked with him, it is not worth of Rs.22,500/- the document produced is not genuine one. OP submitted that as per the terms and conditions of that, he is liable to pay to the extent of Rs.100/- per K.G consignment without insurance. Ops denied that the letter of complainant is received by him. Hence, there is no cause of action to file this complainant, prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint the power of attorney holder of the complainant, Mr. Hapuram C.S has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint and Ops have not filed their affidavit evidences. The complainant along with the complaint has produced the copy of bill of sale/credit bill of Rs.22,500/- issued by the complainant which is addressed to M/s. Satyanarayana Sajjan Kumar, Rourkela, in vide bill no.4151, booking receipt of consignment issued by the Ops, copy of letter sent to Ops dated 1/7/2010. Ops have filed bill of sale/credit bill for Rs.10,500/- ,copy of receipt issued by the Ops while the consignment has been booked along with their version. Heard the arguments of power of attorney holder of complainant who is in person and perused the records.
4. On the above materials, following points for determination arise.
1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have
caused deficiency in their service in not delivering the consignment to the consignee?
2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: See the Final order
REASONS:
6. Answer on point No 1: There is no dispute between the parties regarding booking of a consignment consists of 29 art silk sarees on 20/5/2010 to the addressed consignee who is in Rourkela vide consignment no.208599 and it was booked on “to pay basis” which the consignee bears the charges of transportation after the delivery. Only dispute is that while booking the consignment, the complainant had given bill of sale/credit bill vide no. 4151 dated 20/5/2010 to the Ops to carry the goods from Bangalore to Rourkela of Orissa. The complainant submitted that the consignment was worth of goods Rs.22,500/- has produced the bill along with the complaint. Op contended that the complainant has given him the bill of the consignment at the time of booking showing the value of sarees is Rs.10,500/- and the same admitted by the complainant stating that to avoid the statutory duties/ tariffs the complainant disclosed the consignment for Rs.10,500/-. Ops are aware about only the disclosed amount is only liable for that.
7. For non delivery of good, the complainant had requested several times either to rebook the consignment in favour of complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.22,500/- along with damages. The same has been requested through the letter sent by the complainant dated 1/7/2010, which is acknowledged by the Ops. The same has been denied by the Ops on verification it is found that is duly signed by the person who has signed in the booking receipt. Hence, the letter of the complainant is taken as served on Ops. Despite the knowledge of non delivery of goods, Op has not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant amicably. It shows his negligence towards the customers.
8. As per the terms and conditions of the Ops –“ The carriers specifically limits liability to maximum for Rs.100/- only per consignment for any cause or loss” is duly agreed and signed by the complainant. This condition is applicable to the consigner who has not declared the value of the consignment. But in this particular complaint since here the complainant disclosed the value of the consignment to OP as Rs.10,500/- and OP was at liberty to collect charges from the consignee. Thus, Ops are bound to pay as per the contract of the complainant here disclosed the amount of goods as Rs.10,500/- which is known to Ops while it was booked. Hence, Op is liable to pay the amount what the complainant had disclosed and not more than that. Here the complainant claimed more than the disclosed amount i.e Rs.22,500/- for which he is not entitled. He is only entitled for the amount what he has disclosed.
9. Hence, Op has admitted the fact that the fault is at his side in not delivering the booked consignment to the consignee which caused lot of inconvenience, loss and mental agony due to the deficiency in service of Ops. Hence are liable to pay damages to the complainant. Accordingly we answer point no.1 in the affirmative in part and we pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed.
Op 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Failing which Ops shall pay interest @ 12% p.a on Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Five Hundred Only) from the date booking i.e 20/5/2010 till it is paid.
Ops shall also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as damages for inconvenience and mental agony within 30 days from the date of this order.
Ops shall pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 7th February 2011.
Member Member President
