Date of Filing:16.04.2009<br /> Date of Order: 08.12.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 878 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Jyothi Prasad Hegde<br /> Competent Person In-charge<br /> of M/s. Medilab India<br /> # 37, Ground Floor<br /> Service Road, Bangalore 71 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> First Flight Couriers Ltd.<br /> # 89, I & II Floor, South Wing<br /> A.M. Plaza, Airport Road<br /> Vimanapura Post<br /> Bangalore 17 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant that he has sent parcel containing medical items to St. Thomas Hospital, Chethipuzha, Kurisummodu P.O., Changanacherry, Kottayam, Kerala on 04.08.2008 by First Flight Courier. Inspite of repeated reminders goods were not delivered to the end user. Opposite party collected Rs. 365/- for delivering the goods and Rs. 3,110/- for sales tax purpose. When contacted opposite party office reply was that because of strike they were not able to supply the items. Therefore, complainant claimed the value of goods Rs. 20,900/-, transport charges of Rs. 365/-, sales tax expenses Rs. 3,110/- and travelling and miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.<br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party appeared through counsel and filed defence version stating that one Medilab India has booked consignment on 04.08.2008 through opposite party company addressed to St. Thomas Hospital, Kerala. Complainant has no right to file this complaint against opposite party. Complainant has not produced documents to show that consignment was not delivered to the consignee. Opposite party company has delivered the consignment to consignee. Complainant herein has filed complaint after lapse of one year. Opposite party company destroys the documents after lapse of six months. Hence, opposite party company has no document to show that consignment was delivered to the consignee. The complainant paid Rs. 3,110/- to opposite party for sales tax is denied and complainant is put to strict proof of the same. For all these reasons stated above the opposite party company prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of Jyothi Prasad Hegde for the complainant and affidavit of Abhiman K.L. for the opposite party has been filed. <br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The Points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the value of goods with compensation?<br /> 6. I have gone through the documents, pleadings and affidavit evidence.<br /> 7. The complainant has produced tax invoice which is for Rs. 20,900/-. The complainant has produced consignment receipt No. SK1298285 of opposite party which is dated 04.08.2008. As per this receipt the opposite party has received Rs. 365/- from the complainant. The documents includes invoice. Actual weight of goods is shown as 15 kg. The fact that Medilab sent courier through opposite party is admitted. The consignee is St. Thomas Hospital, Kerala. The complainant has produced letter of St. Thomas Hospital dated 20.05.2009 stating that the consignee has not received the consignment. The complainant has produced e-mail addressed to opposite party informing that consignment was not received by consignee. The complaint has been filed by Jyothi Prasad Hegde. He is a person incharge of M/s. Medilab India, to show this fact the complainant has produced the license issued by Assistant Drugs Controller & Licencing Authority, Bangalore which is a Form No. 21C. As per this license the license was renewed for a period from 08.03.2009 to 07.03.2014 which had been granted to M/s. Medilab India for the sale of drugs at the premises situated at No. 37, Ground Floor, Service Road, Domlur Layout, Bangalore 560071. Mr. Jyothi Prasad Hegde is the competent person in charge under the said license. Therefore, the complaint filed by Mr. Jyothi Prasad Hegde is competent and maintainable. The defence taken by the opposite party that complainant has no right to file complaint since, the consignment has been sent by Medilab India has no force and merit. The defence taken by the opposite party that consignment has been delivered to consignee cannot be accepted at all either in law or on facts. The opposite party has not produced acknowledgement or any other document to show that consignment has been delivered to the consignee. The opposite party has not made any effort to take document or letter of St. Thomas Hospital to prove that consignment had been delivered to the hospital. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit or substance in the defence taken by the opposite party. The opposite party has taken defence that it has destroyed the document after lapse of six months. This again cannot be accepted in the eye of law. The opposite party has not produced any rule or regulation of law to show that documents will be destroyed after lapse of six months. Nothing has been prevented opposite party to obtain letter or document from the St. Thomas Hospital to show that concern consignment has been delivered to the hospital. Therefore, in the absence of any document the defence taken by the opposite party cannot be accepted in the eye of law. The fact remains that the complainant has sent consignment worth Rs. 20,900/- and he has produced the invoice in consignment. Since, the goods were not delivered by the opposite party it is definite case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant has been put to loss. The complainant being a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act his interests requires to be protected. The opposite party being a service provider has failed in his duty and obligation by not delivering the goods to the consignee. Therefore, opposite party cannot escape from his liability to make good loss to the complainant. Complainant is definitely entitled to the value of goods of Rs. 20,900/- as per invoice. The complainant has also claimed Rs. 3,110/- paid towards sales tax. But he has not produced any document that he has paid this amount to opposite party. Therefore, he is not entitled for this amount. The complainant has paid Rs. 365/- towards transport charges to opposite party. The complainant is definitely entitled for this amount also from the opposite party since, no service is provided by the opposite party. The complainant has also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as travelling and miscellaneous expenses. Again there is no proof or documents to show that the complainant has spent Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling and miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, there is no basis to claim this amount. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case opposite party is bound to pay Rs. 20,900/- + Rs. 365/- to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a reasonable interest on this amount. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 21,265/- 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 above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.<br /> 9. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />