Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1342/2008

Rajendra M.Channalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

VRL - Opp.Party(s)

Kumar & Kumar Advocates,

10 Nov 2008

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1342/2008

Rajendra M.Channalli
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

VRL
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

Date of Filing:17.06.2008 Date of Order:10.11.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1342 OF 2008 Rajendra M. Channalli R/at No. 2, 8/9, 2nd Main Attiguppe, Vijayanagar Bangalore 40 Complainant V/S VRL, Corporate Office at Girija Anexe Circuit House Road Hubli 580 029 Represented by its Managing Director Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1982 to direct opposite party to pay Rs. 12,428/- with interest and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The brief facts of the case are that complainant on 20/10/2007 approached the opposite party and handed over the parcel of wedding card to deliver the same to his mother who is residing at Dharwad. The opposite party issued a Luggage Slip No. 501073742 after collecting Rs. 170/- towards the service charge. After much persuasion at opposite party Dharwad office, they gave the parcel which was drenched in the rain and the parcel was completely damaged beyond use. The complainant’s mother refused to receive the parcel since it was damaged. There was no satisfactory response and reasons given by opposite party for the damage to the parcel caused. This is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant was made to visit opposite party office several times unnecessarily which affected his work, caused great hardship and inconvenience. Due to non-delivery of parcel, complainant’s family was not able to distribute the cards to the relatives and friends who reside at Dharwad and nearby places. The opposite party has caused irreparable loss, injury, mental agony and harassment to complainant by not delivering invitation cards to his mother in good condition. Complainant issued notice dated 18.03.2008. On 26.03.2008 opposite party replied to the notice admitting that it has not delivered the consignment in good condition. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party was put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version admitting that opposite party issued a luggage slip No. 501073742 to the complainant after collecting Rs. 170/- towards the service charges. It is denied by the opposite party that the parcel was packed in water-proof cartons. All other allegations made by the complainant are denied by the opposite party. It is submitted by the opposite party that booking of the consignment in question was under certain terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties, which are manifestly printed on the reverse of the luggage slip, which is within the knowledge of the complainant. The alleged loss, which is the subject matter of the above complaint, is for the reasons beyond the control of the opposite party. It is further stated that the consignment contained only blank marriage invitation cards, which aspect has been distorted by the complainant to state that the consignment contained printed invitation cards. There is no negligence in the conduct of the opposite party. 3. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard. 4. The point for consideration is:- “Whether there was any deficiency in service part of the opposite parties?” 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had given parcel said to have been containing Wedding Cards to be delivered to his mother at Dharwad. The opposite party had issued luggage slip dated 20/10/2007. The complainant has produced said luggage slip issued by the opposite party. The opposite party has collected Rs.180/- towards service charges from the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the parcel was completely damaged. The mother of the complainant refused to receive the parcel since it was damaged. It is the case of the complainant that parcel was consisting of two cartoons and both of them were damaged. The opposite party did not give satisfactory reasons for the said damage. The opposite party exhibited irresponsibility in not delivering the parcel in good condition. Therefore, it is the case of the complainant that it is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant also submitted that he was made to visit opposite party office several times which effected works, caused him great hardship and inconvenience. The complainant submitted that opposite party caused lot of mental agony and harassment to him in not delivering the invitation cards to his mother in good condition. Before filing complaint, complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite party explaining all the facts and demanding compensation and cost of the material. Copy of legal notice is also produced. The opposite party in its defense version at para-4 admitted that the parcel got wet in the rain in the course of transit from Bangalore-Dharwad, which event was beyond the control of the opposite party and no negligence could be attributed for the same. This statement of the opposite party in the defense version is a clear case of admission of deficiency in service. The opposite party cannot escape from its liability saying that event was beyond its control. Opposite party being a famous transport company running the business of transport not only in Karnataka, but through out India, it has got lot of customers, it is the duty and responsibility of opposite party to see that the parcel sent through their transport vehicle are reached without any damage to the destination or to the consignee. The parcel sent by the complainant got wet in the rain in the course of transit from Bangalore-Dharwad itself goes to show that there was negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite party in not delivering the parcel in good condition to the consignee. The complainant cannot be held responsible in any way for the damage or loss caused to his parcel. Admittedly, opposite party had taken Rs.180/- towards service charge from the complainant and it should have seen that the parcel delivered to the consignee in good condition. The opposite party should have taken care and precaution to protect the parcel from the rain water. The very fact that the parcel was allowed to get wet in the rain itself is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The parcel given by the complainant in two cartoons must have been transported by the opposite party to the destination in good and safe condition. The opposite party cannot wash of its hand by saying that the event was beyond its control. When the parcel got wet in the rain during transit period, it cannot be said that the event was beyond control of opposite party. The goods or any parcel can be transported by the transport agency in a protective vehicle and said parcel can be transported without getting wet in the rain water. The opposite party being a transporter it is the duty and responsibility of the opposite party to provide service to the customers in efficient and proper manner. The Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislature, it intends to protect the better interest of the consumers. Protection of consumers from the exploitation is the need of the hour. A consumer is the most important visitor to the business premises. He is not dependent on the service provider and on the other hand the service providers are dependent on him. It is the case of the complainant that he had sent material worth of Rs. 12,428/- in two cartoons to be delivered to his mother at Dharwad. As regards the value of the material the opposite party has not disputed. The opposite party has not denied or disputed anywhere the value of the material sent by the complainant. The opposite party has produced material i.e, invitation card sheets before this Forum packed in gunny bag since the complainant had refused to take back the parcel on account of damage. The very fact that the invitation card sheets were packed in gunny bag itself goes to show that the parcels sent by the complainant in two cartoons were not in safe position and parcel had been damaged. Otherwise the opposite party could have produced two cartoons received from the complainant. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.12,428/-, the cost of the invitation card sheets to the complainant along with interest. The complainant has sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the opposite party for mental agony, harassment and loss caused to him. The complainant has prayed compensation on the ground that his family put into embarrassing situation because they have not able to send the wedding invitation card to many of the relatives. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case to grant compensation as claimed by the complainant. The ends of justice will be met in awarding cost of the material sent by the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 12,428/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the complainant is entitled to interest at 12% p.a on the above amount from the date of this order till payment/realization. 7. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the present proceedings from opposite party. 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.,