Kerala

Idukki

CC/213/2018

Laissamma Andros - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kalppaka Tansport com: - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 28.11.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2020

Present :

 

SMT. ASAMOL. P PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

 

CC NO.213/2018

Between

Complainant : Laisamma Andrews,

Proprietor,

Kuttikkuppayam, Lan Apparels,

Near Adone Food Court,

Kumali Road, Kattappana, Idukki.

(By Advs: Ajithkumar A. & P.K. Madhu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Kalpaka Transport Company

Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office,

Door No.6/773, YMCA Road,

Kozhikode – 673 001.

2. The Regional Manager,

Kalpaka Transport Company

Pvt. Ltd.,

GCDA Complex, Marine Drive,

Ernakulam, Kochi – 31.

3. The Manager,

Alappey Parcel Service,

Puliyanmala Road,

Opposite H.P. Petrol Bunk,

Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Brief facts of the complaint are :-

 

Complainant purchased some cloth materials from Mumbai on 23^rd July 2018 and entrusted it to 1^st opposite party's branch office at Mumbai, for sending it through their parcel service. Eventhough the complainant reached his place, she has not received the parcel. When the complainant enquired the matter of delay with 1^st opposite party, they replied that the parcel articles they

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

transported, reached in 2^nd opposite party's godown. While so, the complainant received a call from 3^rd opposite party intimating that her parcel is reached to them. When the complainant approached 3^rd opposite party, they delivered 2 packets to the complainant. On inspection, it is seen that the contents of the packets are totally damaged and are filled with mud and water. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the parcel which were kept in the godown of 2^nd opposite party, caused damages due to the flood. Hence alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties 1 to 3, complainant approached this Forum.

 

Upon receiving notice, 3^rd opposite party entered appearance and filed reply version, by raising a preliminary issue that, they are not at all a necessary party being a stranger to the alleged transaction. 3^rd opposite party is a separate entity and having no relationship at all with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. 3^rd opposite party did not deliver any item to the complainant booked through 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. 

 

          It is seen from the complaint that, opposite parties 1 and 2 is situated at Kozhikode and Ernakulam respectively.  Based on the maintainability petition filed by the 3^rd opposite party and hearing their counsel, this Forum, as per order dated 26.12.2019, found that 3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party to the complainant.  Hence 3^rd opposite party was deleted from the opposite party array.  The complainant’s allegation is that she had purchased ready made materials etc from Unity Importing and Trading Company, Mumbai for Rs.70340/- and entrusted to branch office of 1^st opposite party at Mumbai Dongri on 2.8.2018.  From this, it is clear that, the cause of action arose at Mumbai.  The complainant has produced copy of the following documents also.

1. 1. 1. Consignee copy of consignment note.

      2. Invoice for the purchase of readymade materials.

      3. Copy of notice dated 31.8.2018 issued by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party.

      4. Reply dated 4.9.2018 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

      5. Reply dated 6.9.2018 issued by the 1^st opposite party.

      6. Copy of notice dated 25.9.2018 issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.

      7. Reply dated 28.9.2018 issued by the 1^st opposite party.

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

On 27.12.2019, opposite parties 1 and 2 were called absent and set them exparte and the  case was posted  for exparte evidence on 14.1.2020.  When the case was called on 14.1.2020, complainant was absent and no representation also.  Considering the above facts, case is posted to 31.1.2020 for orders on maintainability. 

          We have gone through the complaint and noticed the following irregularities. The complainant has entrusted the goods at Mumbai for delivering the same to her shop at Kattappana.  Hence the cause of action for the complaint has arisen at Mumbai.  Besides, the registered office and regional office of the transporting company is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Forum. In such a situation, the territorial jurisdiction has to be looked into.    Since the cause of action has arisen   and also for the reason that, opposite parties 1 and 2 are situated outside jurisdiction of this Forum, there is no jurisdiction for   this Forum     to proceed with the complaint.  In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that, complaint cannot be proceeded with since this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction. Hence the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum.

          In these circumstances, we dismiss the complaint with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint if any, before appropriate Forum.

          Order accordingly.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31^st day of January, 2020

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT