District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.

Complaint Case No. 78 of 2008



Ajay Kumar s/o Sri Baleshwar Singh

R/o Qr.No.-170, Sector I/C, B.S.City.

Dist.- Bokaro.

Versus

1. First Flight Couriers Limited, 15/16 National House, Chandivali Jn. Saki Vihar Rd., Sakinaka, Andheri(E) Mumbai-72.

2. The Branch Manager, First Flight Couriers Limited GA-3, City Centre (Near Sri Sai Hospital), City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City-827004.

Before-

S.M.Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 26 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 21 October, 2008

-: Judgment:-

The Complainant has filed this Consumer

Complaint against the opposite parties and sought direction of this Forum against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 213500/-, the cost of damage house hold items with interest @ 18% since 19.11.2006 till payment, Rs. 50000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment besides Rs. 10000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

2 Brief facts of this case is that the complainant had contacted the opposite party No.2 for caring his domestic house hold material from Bokaro Steel City to Bangalore. The opposite party no.2 assured the complainant to deliver the article in safe condition at Bangalore, and the present engaged by them would pack the household articles of payment of their respective charge for different services like packaging, transportation, insurance etc. The total articles no. 51 were booked vide consignment No. SE1089401 dated 06.11.2006 by the opposite party no.2, and the value of the articles booked declared to the tune of RS. 300000/- and all the charges on calculation come to Rs. 19350/- which was paid to the opposite party no.2 by the complainant.

3 The said articles delivered to the complainant at Bangalore on 16.11.2006 and 19.11.2006 respectively in badly damaged condition and therefore, endorsement in this regard made in relevant documents by the complainant. It is necessary to mention here that the entire household articles were loaded in one truck bearing no. BR-20-E-9045 for caring the goods to Bangalore but were delivered on two different dates. It is further necessary to point out here that the three copies ie Consignor copy consignee copy and POD copy were not properly filled up by the opposite party no.2, for example risk surcharge, value of goods, type of packaging etc. have not been mentioned as RS. 19350/- where as in other copies which has been shown as Rs. 15883/-.

4 The opposite party no.2 loaded the entire goods on Truck bearing no. BR-20-E-9045 of same day I e 06.11.2006 to transportation to Bangalore. The total weight of consignment was 1010KG. The declaration was also signed by the complainant to carry the household item by the opposite parties to Bangalore on 06.11.2008 and the said declaration was filled up by the representative of the opposite party no.2 and the consignment number was wrongly mentioned as SE1098410 in place of SE1089401 for the reason best known to them. The complainant prepared the list of damaged articles on surface parcel list in present of the staff of the opposite parties and a copy of said list was sent to Sailesh Kumar Singh, Senior Branch Executive of the opposite parties at Bokaro Branch on 20.11.2006 by the complainant through professional couriers. The complainant met the official of the opposite parties and apprised them with delivery of goods in damage condition as well as the losses caused to him due to their negligence and deficient service in caring his household items. When the complainant heard nothing for a long time and the callous attitude of the opposite parties he appraised a list of damage goods and lodged a claim of Rs. 213500/- during transportation on12.12.2006 to opposite party no.2 and continued to know the status on telephone or personally. The opposite parties used to inform the complainant that the matter was investigated by the company and he would be informed in due course of time but no one came to assess the damage and therefore, he lodged another complaint in this regard on 15.01.2007. The damage articles are not in use and kept in a tenanted premises for which Rs. 6000/- per month are being paid by the complainant since Nov.2006.The complainant made a number of visits to the opposite party No.2 to discuss the issues as also to assess the losses caused to him but they never turned up is sufficient to prove the negligent and deficient services of the opposite parties and therefore, the complainant is entitled for compensation also.

5 The complainant also sent legal notices on 21.07.2008 but none of the opposite parties took pain to reply the said notice. The opposite parties also used to shift their office frequently from one place to another without any information which would be evident from the fact that notice sent to Kolkata office of the opposite parties was returned with endorsement “left”. The address of the opposite party no.2 is also varies it would be evident from the fact that their office was at B-10, and at present they are at GA-3, therefore a clear case of “unfair Trade Practice” is also made out against the opposite parties. The cause of action arose at Kolkata in Nov.2006 when the opposite party no.2 received the charges for providing their service for booking, loading and transporting and unloading of household articles of the complainant. From the above fact it is quit clear that there is negligency and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the damage along with compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant.

6 Upon issuance of notices the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement. Apart from ornamental statement the sum and substance of written statement is that admittedly the complainant had booked his household articles to carry the same at Bangalore and for which charges were paid as per agreement with the opposite parties. So far booking of the goods concerned it is said that the trained labours are engaged in packing as per required and request made by the consignee. The company is not a insurance sector and hence the goods are never consignor. The opposite parties also denied that goods were delivered at Bangalore on two dates e I 16.11.2006 and 19.11.2006 in badly damage condition and the endorsement where made in the relevant documents by the complainant. According to the opposite parties the goods were delivered to the complainant in good condition and the same was packed and booked and there is neither any endorsement regarding the damage of the articles in the relevant papers as lodged nor the same has been communicated to these opposite parties till now and all the allegations have been made for wrongful gain by the complainant by putting the opposite party in wrongful loss. The opposite party also denied that all the materials were loaded in one Truck No. BR-20E-9045but there was delivered on two dates. The opposite parties also denied that the amount of consignment mentioned on the consignment receipt is different on different copies. At the time of making any consignment it is practice that 4 copies of the same are prepared and other then original remaining 3 copies which are carbon copies of the original so there is no question of being different amounts on the different receipt and if any such discrepancies appears on the face of the receipt it must be false and fabricated and manipulated by the complainant for wrongful gain. The opposite party also denied that the complainant prepared a list of damage articles of surface parcel loss in presence of the staff of the opposite parties and a copy of the same sent to the Sri Sailesh Kr. Singh Senior Branch Executive at Bokaro on 20.11.2006 through personal couriers. The fact is that no such list has been received by these opposite parties. The opposite party also denied that the complainant met official of the opposite parties and appraised them regarding damaged articles. At the time of delivery of articles they were all in good condition and no damage was caused to the household articles in course of transportation and allegation made by the complainant only with a view to harass the opposite parties and for wrongful gain. The opposite parties also submit that they are not responsible for any damage caused to any articles because the family members were present during the course of placing the same in the house at its proper place and as such the allegations are false and fabricated and hence the complaint is not entitled to get any relief of his claim as sought in the relief and present consumer case is fit to be dismissed.

7 Both parties were heard. The entire case records and document filed on behalf of the parties have been perused. It is observed that the complainant sent his household articles in 51 pieces by booking the same vide consignment no. SE 1089401 dated 06.11.2006 with the opposite party no.2. The value of the goods was declared to be Rs. 300000/- and the fright charges, risk surcharge (insurance), loading, unloading and service taxes etc were calculated to Rs.19350/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party no.2. The consignment weighing 1010 Kg. was booked at B.S.City to be delivered at Bangalore. The articles were delivered at Bangalore by the opposite parties on 16.11.2006 and 19.11.2006 respectively in badly damaged condition. Though the articles were loaded at B.S.City in one Truck No. BR-20E-9045 for caring the same to Bangalore, they were delivered on two different dates mentioned above.

8 It is further observed that the complainant endorsed the damaged condition of his articles delivered at Bangalore by the opposite party on its consignment receipt copy SE 1089401 and on its surface parcel run sheet no. PR425853. Copies of above have been filed by the complainant. Later on the complainant wrote letter to the opposite party no.2 intimating it regarding the damage of delivered household items during transportation and claiming damage thereof. The said letter was received by the opposite party on 12.12.2006. A reminder letter was also sent by the complainant on 15.01.2007. When nothing came out from the opposite parties the complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.07.2008 to them regarding the same. After the opposite parties did not take any action in the matter, the complainant filed this complaint case.

9 It is found that the opposite parties have failed to establish that the complainant’s articles booked with them at B.S.City were delivered to his address at Bangalore in good and safe condition. In view of the above we conclude that the articles of the complainant were delivered in damaged condition at Bangalore by the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has suffered financial loss besides sustaining physical and mental harassment at the hands of opposite parties, for which only they are responsible. We, therefore, hold the opposite parties negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant and they are held liable to pay relief to him. The complainant has calculated his financial loss to the tune of Rs. 213500/- but we have assessed the loss at Rs. 110000/- after allowing depreciation considering the fact that the damaged articles were not new ones.

10 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.110000/- (Rupees one lac ten thousand) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.