THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE No. CC- 83  of  2018

 

 

Communist Party  of India(Marxist), 

Tripura State Committee,

Dasarath Deb Smriti Bhavan, 

Melarmath, Agartala,

District- Tripura West 

 

Represented by:-

 

Haripada Das, 

S/O- Lt. Amarchand Das,

Member, CPI(M), 

Tripura State Committee 

being duly authorized. …...................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Vishal Roadways,

Head Office at East Thana Road,

Banamalipur, Agartala Tripura(W),

P.S. East Agartala,

PIN- 799007.

Vishal Roadways,

Branch Office at Ganpat Bangla Road,

Kolkata-700 007.

 

2. Vishal Roadways,

Branch Office at Ganpat Bangla Road,

Kolkata-700 007.

 

3. Sri Arindam Chakraborty,

S/O- Late Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty, 

19/10A, Suryasen Pally,

P.O. & P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata- 700082.

 

4. Sri Chandan Chakraborty,

Resident of Ananta Dey Sarani, 

Agartrala, Tripura West,

Pin- 799001.

 

5. Sri Apu Chakraborty,

S/O- Late Brajendra Chakraborty,

Ujan Abhoynagar, District- West Triprua,

Pin- 799005. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sri Rakhal Ch. Debnath,

  Sri Diptanu Debnath,

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 5 : Sri Diptapratim Ghosh,

  Sri S. Lodh,

  Learned Advocates.

 

For the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 : None appeared.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON  : 25.10.2021

 

J U D G M E N T

 

The Complainant's case in short is that the complainant is an official unit CPI(M) having registered office at Agartala, West Tripura being represented by its duly authorized representative. Through its representative complainant availed the service of the O.P. company  having its registered head office at Agartala, and branch office at Kolkata for the transportation of election campaign materials bought at Kolkata for election campaign of the State Legislative Election, 2018 for the State of Tripura amounting to Rs.12,96,729/- from Kolkata to Agartala i.e., to the address of the consignee the complainant. As such from 12.08.2017 to 17.08.2017 the said materials for election campaign were booked at the branch office of the O.P. at Kolkata as many as 93 bags to be transported from Kolkata to Agartala against which the O.P. company issued 6 nos. of challan bills of consignment and undertook the responsibility to deliver the said materials amounting to Rs.12,96,729/- and total carriage charges was Rs.21,675/- to be paid on receipt of the consignments. After elapsed of considerable time the complainant made contact with the O.P. No.1 & 2 enquiring about the status of the delivery campaigning materials under the said consignments to which the O.P. No.1 & 2 replied that the consignments are on transit and will be delivered in a short period of time. Thereafter in the month of November, 2017, the complainant again tried to make contact with the O.P. No.1 & 2  as the materials required for election campaign but the O.P. No. 1 & 2 started to behave strangely and sought further time to deliver the consignments. On 19.12.2017 the Secretary  of the complainant in the letter pad sent a letter to the registered address of the O.P. No.1 at Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura informing about the non-delivery of the materials. On receipt of the letter the O.P. No.1 by a letter dated 09.12.2017 mentioned that the said consignments could not be delivered as the vehicle on which the said consignments were loaded by the O.P. company to be carried from Kolkata to Agartala under the control of the O.P. company got lost on the way and therefore to exonerate them from any liability for non delivery of the materials.  Thereafter the secretary of the complainant through its engaged counsel sent an Advocate's Notice on 29.08.2018. Thereafter another Advocate's Notice was sent on 11.09.2018. But the O.P. No.1 avoided to receive the Advocate's Notice. Complainant stated that there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and for that the complainant sufferred huge financial loss also sufferred severely in the election campaign for the non delivery of the materials and also suffered loss of reputation and trust amongst the members of the CPI(M) Tripura State Committee and amongst the general public of the State of Tripura. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint petition for adequate compensation of Rs.19,96,729/-. 

 

2. On receipt of notice the O.P. No.5 appeared and filed their written objection denying all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. It is stated by the O.P. No.5 that the petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable in its present from and nature and liable to be dismissed. In regard to Para -1 &  2 the O.P. stated that they have no knowledge about the same. The O.P. stated that they have no knowledge about the facts as alleged by the complainant in the first part of para no.3. It is stated by the O.P. that at the relevant time the O.P. No.5 was working as an employee in the O.P. transport company and posted at Agartala office. On 09.12.2017 after getting the letter from the complainant, the O.P. No.5 came to know about the lost of campaigning materials during the transit from Kolkata to Agartala. It is stated that after some days of transit of the materials the O.P. No.3 could not able to make contact with the driver of the vehicle where the campaigning materials were loaded. Information about this was also given to the complainant by the O.P. no. 4 & 5. It is also stated that O.P. No.3 lodged complaint before the Jorabagan Police station, Kolkata against the driver cum owner of the vehicle. It is stated that the matter of missing was beyond the knowledge of the O.P. No.5. The O.P. No.5 has no liability to pay compensation to the complainant as the O.P. No.4 is the owner /proprietor of the said transport company. The O.P. No.5 denied allegations made by the complainant in para no. 6 & 7 in the complaint petition. Therefore they prayed to reject the instant petition filed by the complainant.

  O.P. no. 3 and 4 did not appear to contest the case. Hence, case has been proceeded exparte against the O.P. No.3 & 4 vide order dated 19.03.2019 & 31.08.2020 respectively.

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

On behalf of the complainant examination in chief on affidavit was filed by Sri Haripada Das. Some documents were submitted by the complainant which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

No evidence was adduced from the side of the O.Ps. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

  As the case was proceeded exparte against the O.Ps, we heard the complainant only. The complainant submitted that they have booked the campaigning materials which was not delivered by the O.Ps on due time. Therefore the complainant sustained loss financially and being harassed mentally. 

 

6. FINDINGS  AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISION:-

                  Both the points are taken up together for convenience. We have gone through the pleadings, evidences and documents submitted from side of the complainant. On perusal of the pleadings and evidences, we find that the complainant booked some campaigning materials for election purpose with the O.P. which was not at all delivered by the O.Ps to the complainant. The O.Ps only submitted their written objection. No documentary evidence was adduced by the O.Ps. It is admitted fact that the complainant had booked the campaigning materials amounting to Rs.12,96,729/- with the O.P. From the documents filed by the complainant, we found that the complainant had handed over in total 93 bags containing of campaigning materials to the O.Ps at Kolkata to be transported from Kolkata to Agartala. It was agreed that after delivery the transportation charge will be paid. From pleadings we find that it is admitted fact that the O.Ps failed to deliver the materials to the complainant at Agartala. Since the complainant booked the materials for the election purpose in the year 2017 and the O.Ps failed to deliver the same at all, we are of the opinion that the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service by not delivering the same to the complainant. The complainant has been able to proved his case by adducing sufficient evidence and hence, we hold that O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to refund the value of the materials to the complainant. O.Ps are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for loss of reputation.  

 

7. We order that the O.Ps will have to refund the amount of Rs.12,96,729/- to the complainant which were the value of the consignment. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- as compensation from the O.Ps for deficiency of service  and loss of reputation and also litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. In total the O.Ps will pay Rs.13,26,729/- to the complainant within 2 months from the date of the judgment, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9%. Thus, complaint petition is allowed partly. Supply copy of this judgment to the complainant and the O.Ps free of cost. Complainant is directed to send a photocopy of the judgment to the address of the O.P. by registered post for compliance of the order.

 

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.