IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of June, 2017.
Filed on 10/01/2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) in
C.C.No.14/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Manojkumar, Proprietor 1. DRD DILP ROAD LINES Pvt Ltd
Hari Enterprises 12/229 A/ Corp.Office 306, 3rd Floor, Kabra
North Aryadu, Rep.by its Office in Complex-61, M.G.Road,
Charge, Sajeev, S/o C.N.Suseelan, Secendrabad-500003 rep.by its
Santhu Nivas, Kalavoor PO Managing Director.
Alappuzha.
(By Adv.V.N.Kiranlal) 2. Gigi Idikula, DGM, Territory Head,
Branch Office, D No.41/3643, 1st
Floor, Kooren, Deep Building,
Providence Road, Near
Vidyanikethan College, Cochin
682 018.
3. Biju Varghese, Credit controlling
Charge, Branch Office,
D No.41/3643, 1st
Floor, Kooren, Deep Building,
Providence Road, Near
Vidyanikethan College, Cochin
682 018
4. Rajeev, Sales Marketing Manager
Branch Office,
D No.41/3643, 1st
Floor, Kooren, Deep Building,
Providence Road, Near
Vidyanikethan College, Cochin
682 018
(By Adv. G.Sunilkumar for all Ops)
O R D E R
SMT ELIZABETH GEORGE ( PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is the manufacturer of mats and matting. He runs his manufacturing unit in the name and style ‘Hari Enterprises’. The complainant is self-employed and ekes out his lively hood on operating his firm ‘sHari Enterprises’. The 1st opposite party company DRS DILP ROAD LINES Pvt Ltd is the carrier of goods. 2nd to 4th opposite parties are the office bearers of the 1st opposite party. The complainant used to consign their products through different carriers. While so the 2nd to the 4th opposite parties approached the complainants in Alappuzha and offered to transport their goods to different destinations. The complainant accepted the opposite parties offer on being induced by the tempting promises as to the safe and speedy transportation of supplies and alluring assurances as to the opposite parties service. With the result, the complainant commenced to dispatch merchandise through the opposite parties. From 3rd December 2013 complainant entrusted 161 bundles of rubber mats consisting total 1610 pieces bearing the cost of Rs.485469 (Four lakh Eighty Five thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine) to the opposite parties at the complainant’s office in Alappuzha to be delivered to METRO LIFE STYLE, NEW DELHI. The opposite parties carried the consignment under GC Note No.4278943 dated 3rd December 2013. The rubber mats were entrusted to the opposite parties on the assurance of safe and speedy carriage and delivery of the same to the consignee in good order and condition. But the opposite parties purposefully did not deliver the consignment to the consignee in time. The complainant cautioned them of pursuing legal actions, if the consignment was not delivered right away. The opposite party stuck to their stand that the consignment was yet to arrive in Delhi and required the complainant to clear some previous pending payments. The complainant convinced the opposite parties that no payment was pending towards the opposite party. The opposite parties unlawfully held back the consignment for further days. The complainant on 19th December 2013 was forced to file a complaint against the opposite parties before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. Consequently upon the said legal interference, consignment to the consignee. The service of the opposite party is deficient as well without any authority kept back the consignment in hostage and demanded money with a view to make illegal enrichment. Alleging defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2.Version of the opposite parties is as follows.
The allegation is that opposite parties did not deliver the consignment to the consignee in time is totally false. It is very material to note that there is an obligation cast upon the complaint to pay off the transportation charges as per the terms and conditions. Even after the repeated demands made by the opposite parties, the complainant did not turn up to pay off the charges for transportation. The attempt of the complainant was to deliver goods to consignee without paying transportation charges. The opposite parties had bitter experiences from the complainant on earlier occasions also. The complainant filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha and subsequently both parties were called to Mannancherry Police Station and the matter was settled by paying the transportation cost by the complainant. The complainant received the consignment and complaint is infructuous. There is no cause of action for the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 and A2. One of the staff of the opposite party was examined as RW1. No documents adduced from the part of the opposite parties.
4.Points for considerations are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted 161 bundles of rubber mats with the opposite party for delivering it to Metro Life Style, New Delhi. According to complainant the rubber mats entrusted to the opposite parties were not delivered to the consignee in time. They further alleged that the opposite party unlawfully held back the consignment for several days and he was forced to file a complaint against the opposite parties before the Hon’ble First Class Magistrate Court Alappuzha and upon the legal interferences, the opposite parties forced to deliver the consignment to the consignee on 2nd January 2014. According to the opposite party since the complainant failed to pay off the transportation charges as per the terms and conditions, they made repeated demands for the same to the complainant, but they did not turn up to pay off the charges for transportation. They further stated that when the complainant filed a private complaint before the First Class Magistrate Court Alappuzha both parties were called to Mannancherry Police Station and the matter was settled by paying transportation cost by the complainant. While cross examining the complainant he admitted that received the goods after remitting due amount. Ext.A1 is the copy of under GC Note No.4278943 dated 3/12/2013. In Ext.A1 it is clearly mentioned that “ to pay freight to be paid before delivery”. In this case the contention of the opposite party is that inspite of the repeated demands made by the opposite party to pay transportation charge complainant did not turned up. It is an admitted fact that both the complainant and opposite parties were called to Mannancherry Police Station and the matter was settled after paying the freight charge by the complainant without any protest. Thereafter settling the matter without reserving any claim for compensation, the complainant is estopped from claiming compensation from the opposite party by filing the complaint. From Ext.A1 it is clear that complainant should pay the freight charge before delivery. There is no document produced by the complainant to prove that he has paid the freight charge before the settlement complainant failed to prove his case and the complaint filed is not maintainable.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2017.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George, President
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1 - Manojkumar(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of under GC Note No.4278943 dtd 3/12/13
Ext.A2 - Copy of Bill No.KOC/84023/13 dtd 17/12/13
Evidence of the opposite parties
RW1 - Rajeev V.S(Witness)
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F
