Kerala

Trissur

CC/16/536

Geo Jose - Complainant(s)

Versus

VRL Logistes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.A.D.Benny

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR-3
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/536
 
1. Geo Jose
-
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. VRL Logistes Ltd
-
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. P.K.Sasi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M P Chandrakumar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. SHEENA V V MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Adv.A.D.Benny, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 30 Dec 2016
Final Order / Judgement

By  Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President

        The case of the complainant is that he has sent some Ayurvedic products from Himachal Pradesh on 17/10/15 through opposite party. He sent 52 bundles, out of that 8 bundles damaged and one bundle was not delivered also. According to the complainant one bundle of medicine cost Rs.1,152/- for lost bundles and damaged 8 bundles altogether it costs Rs.10,368/-. The damages and loss of the bundle happens only because of the negligence and irresponsible act of the opposite party.  The bundles were sent by the complainant as a part of his self employment as the only source of income for his lively hood. Evenafter, repeated submission of complaint before the opposite party no relief received hence, lawyer notice was issued on 21/06/16. Eventhen, no relief received. Hence, this complaint is filed.

        2) On receiving complaint notice was properly sent to the opposite party whereas, evenafter accepting the notice the opposite party neither appeared before the Forum nor submitted any version hence, set ex-parte and posted for complainant’s evidence.

        3) The complainant appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He also produced five documents which are marked as Ext. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is delivery cash receipt; Ext. P2 is the invoice; Ext. P3 is the copy of letter given by the complainant; Ext. P4 is the copy of Lawyer Notice with postal receipt dtd.21/06/16 and Ext. P5 A/D card. Since there is no contra evidence available before us, we are inclined to accept the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. We have gone through the contents of the affidavit and perused the documents produced. Ext. P1 delivery cash receipt would go to show that the complainant has collected the goods from the opposite party by paying  Rs.11,830/- on 17/10/15 it further shows 52 bundles are booked on 06/10/15 and out of that 8 bundles were damaged . Regarding loss of one bundle nothing is mentioned in the Ext.P1. According to the complainant one bundle costs Rs.1,152/- therefore, for eight bundles it will becomes Rs.9216/-. Considering all these points we are of the opinion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards complainant.

        In the result, we allow this complaint and the opposite party is directed to return Rs.9,216/- (Rupees Nine thousand two hundred and sixteen only) along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost and compensation to the complainant within one month from receiving copy of this order. Failing which, the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest till realization.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the     30th day of December 2016.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. P.K.Sasi]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. M P Chandrakumar]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SHEENA V V]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.