KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
F.APPEAL NO.411/11
JUDGMENT DATED. 25.5.2012
PRESENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Manager,
Kerala Transport Company,
XL/4598, Lucky Star Building, -- APPELLANT
Market Road, Ernakulam.
(By Adv.Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair)
Vs.
1. Sri.Unnikrishnan,
Kalathil Pharma, Chandanakavu,
Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha.
2. Chottanikara Amman, -- RESPONDENTS
Pharmaceuticals Disttributors,
40/757, 1st Floor, Shanmukha Nilayam,
Gopalaprabhu Road, Ernakulam.
(R1 by Adv.Pallichal S Promod & Ors.)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant was the first opposite party in CC.No.253/10 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complainant/first respondent in this appeal alleged that he was conducting a pharmacy by name and Style M/s.Kalathil Pharma, for distribution of medicines. The second opposite party is the agent of M/s Plethico Pharmaceuticals, Bombay. The complainant had purchased certain medicines from them for distribution. Since, they stopped production of certain medicines, they requested the complainant to return those medicines in his possession. Hence, the complainant entrusted a bundle of such medicines valued at Rs.2318.40 with the first opposite party, a Transport Company for delivering the same to the second opposite party. The first opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.80/- by way of freight charges and issued receipt. The complainant thought that the bundle of medicines would reach the second opposite party in time. But, so far no reply was received from the second opposite party. The first opposite party intimated the complainant that the medicines had reached their godown and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3/- per day for demurrages from 31.5.10. The complainant has sent a letter to the first opposite party stating the whole matter. Ultimately notice was issued on 21.6.10 claiming damages. The first opposite party had not entrusted the bundle of medicines to the second opposite party wilfully for the last one year and thus there is deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint.
2. Only the first opposite party contested the matter. According to them, the complainant entrusted the parcel with certain conditions and they had agreed to effect door delivery of the parcel to the second opposite party. They had issued a letter to the complainant on 9.11.10 intimating the correct day of arrival of the parcel at their office and that they were entitled to get demurrage. They had also intimated the arrival of the parcel to the second opposite party through telephone on several occasions and that matter was also intimated to the complainant through telephone. They had not received any notice from the complainant on 21.6.10 or on 17.6.10. There was no laches on their part. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
3. The complainant gave evidence before the CDRF, Alappuzha. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the first opposite party.
4. The CDRF, Alappuzha held that there was gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party and as such directed them to pay the value of the consignment together with transport charges of Rs.80/- collected from the complainant. A compensation of Rs.25,000/- was also allowed towards the inconvenience and agony caused to them. The first opposite party was directed to pay costs and punitive costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. The correctness of the conclusion of the CDRF, Alappuzha that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is under challenge in this appeal.
5. The appellant is a Transport Company and had admittedly received from the complainant a parcel of medicines on 22.5.09, which was intended to be delivered to the second opposite party a pharmaceutical company. Rs.80/- was the freight charges levied by the first opposite party. The receipt of the consignment of medicines and freight charges is evidenced by Ext.A2. According to the complainant, the appellant failed to deliver the consignment of medicines to the second opposite party to enable them to refund the value of the medicines. This was gross deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The contention is that on the arrival of the consignment at the destination, intimation over telephone was given to the second opposite party. That fact was intimated to the complainant also. But this is denied. There is no acceptable evidence to show that intimation was in fact given. Further according to the complainant, the first opposite party was bound to effect door delivery of the consignment which was not done. It is pertinent to note that the appellant sent Ext.A3 styled as first notice to the complainant on 10.4.10 stating that the disputed consignment reached the destination on 25.5.10 and they were incurring demurrages on 31.5.10 at the rate of Rs.3/- per day. According to the appellant, the arrival date mentioned in Ext.A3 is a mistake. Ext.B2 is produced to show that they have corrected the arrival date as 25.5.09. Ext.B2 itself was sent only on 9.12.10. It is quite obvious that the appellant slept over the consignment very long time. Not only that no written intimation was given regarding the arrival of the consignment at the destination to the second opposite party, they also failed to intimae the complainant about the non-delivery of the consignment on time. The circumstance reveal that the appellant was not diligent in effecting delivery of the consignment, thus causing loss to the complainant. Thus, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the first appellant. Therefore, the CDRF, Alappuzha rightly granted the complainant the reliefs sought by him. There is no error in the order of the Forum below.
In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.
S.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
