<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.03.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 31.08.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31ST AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.704/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT M/S. Aishwarya Beauty & Health,No,9, Manju Nilaya,4th cross, Bapuji Layout,Chandra Layout, Vijayanagar,Bangalore – 560 040.Rep. by its Managing PartnerShri.Vijayakumar Sheri.Advocate – Sri.Veeresh.M.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1)The Branch Manager,VRL Logistic Ltd.,No.90/6,2nd Main,2nd Cross, Industrial Town,Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 560 044.2) The Managing Director,VRL Logistic Ltd.,Regd. & AdmnOffice at 17th K.M. Bangalore Road,Varur Hubli-581 207.Advocate – Sri.Vishwanath R. Hegde<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay cost of the consignment Rs.47,842/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant entrusted the consignment to OP to transport it to the consignee M/s. Plastic Electro Platers, Kolkata on 29-12-2008 containing Olive Oils and Olives worth Rs.47,842/-. OP accepted the consignment and collected the freight charges of Rs.1,873/-. Complainant was hopeful that the said consignment will be delivered within a reasonable time. But to his utter shock and surprise he got the information from the consignee that even after a week the consignment has not reached them. It is informed that on the way the waybill was lost. Immediately the complainant contacted the OP to do the needful, but it went in vain. Then he caused the legal notice on 26-02-2009. There was no proper response. For no fault of his complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. This is all because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said consignment has to pass through different States and it will be subjected to thorough check up in the check post. At the West Bengal check post the authorities on verification of the consignment observed that there is no relevant document for two articles in the consignment. That is why they levied fine of Rs.26,058/- and Rs.945/-. When OP driver failed to pay the same the consignment was retained in the check post. Immediately the said fact was brought to the notice of both consignor and the consignee. They have not taken steps to get released the said consignment by producing necessary documents. So no fault lies with the OP. The allegation of the complainant that because the waybill was lost by the driver of the said lorry the consignment was with held at the check post is false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant entrusted the consignment containing Olive Oil and Olives worth Rs.47,842/- to OP to be delivered to the consignee at Kolkata on 29-12-2008. OP collected necessary freight charges of Rs.1,873/- the invoice with list of materials sent as well as the consignment note are produced. Now it is the grievances of the complainant that he expected the delivery of the consignment within 2 to 3 days. But to his utter shock and surprise it was not delivered even after the lapse of more than 10 days. Then the complainant received the message from the consignee with regard to non-receipt of the consignment. On enquiry he came to know that the driver of the lorry lost the waybill that is why West Bengal check post did not allow the driver to move the said consignment. <br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the complainant that he immediately approached the OP to do the needful. OP took its own sweet time of 2 months but still did not get released the said consignment. Ultimately complainant caused the legal notice on 26-02-2009, copy of the legal notice is produced. According to complainant OP gave an evasive reply. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. It is all because of carelessness, negligence and hostile attitude of the OP and its driver. Hence, he felt deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 9. As against it is contended by the OP that as per the consignment note if any consignment is with held by the statutory authority at the check post there is a obligation on the part of both consignee and consignor to get it released by producing necessary documents. Though such kind of terms are printed in small letters in the consignment note actually complainant is not a party to the same contract or agreement because he has not signed same hence that contention of the OP does not find force. According to the complainant the driver of the lorry lost waybill that is why check post authorities prevented the lorry to transport the consignment. On the other hand OP has stated that for 2 items there was no valid records that is why the check post authorities have imposed the fine of Rs.26,058/- and Rs.945/-. When driver failed to make payment of the same the consignment is retained at the check post. <br /> <br /> 10. OP has not produced the documents to support the said defence. OP has not filed the affidavit of the driver who transported the said consignment in the lorry. In addition to that one of the letter addressed by the OP to the complainant speaks about missing of one of the road permit as could be seen from the letter dated 26-02-2009. So OP wants to breath hot and cold to the reasons best known to it. The defence set out by OP is self contradictory. On the other hand complainant is able to prove that road permit issued was lost or misplaced by the driver concerned. When that is so in our view the act and deeds of the OP and its driver amounts to deficiency in service. There is a veracious liability because of the carelessness and negligence of the OP. Complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is entitled for the relief claimed to some extent. <br /> <br /> 11. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to avoid its obligations and commitment. The approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. <br /> <br /> 12. When there is a proof of non-deliver of the consignment and when it is admitted that the consignment still lies at the West Bengal check post, then with all honestly and fairness, OP would have made arrangement to pay the fine if any levied by the statutory authority and there after it would have collected the same either from the consignee or from the consignor. OP cannot keep quiet without initiating the action. OP has to perform its part of contract and it is an obligatory duty in transportation and deliver all the goods as per the contract but here in this case OP has failed in discharge of its duties. Hence complainant deserve the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to pay Rs.47,842/- the value of the consignment to the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />