By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1.Complaint in short is as follows: -
The complainant is engaged in farming fish. There was four sack of fish feed arrived at the opposite party, which was sent from Perumbavoor. The complainant approached opposite party to take delivery of the same, but the opposite party refused to deliver. The complainant approached the opposite party for the delivery on 16/04/2021 and remitted required fee also. The receipt issued by the opposite party itself reveal the amount received by the opposite party includes expense towards loading and unloading. The opposite party demanded further amount towards loading and unloading of the article which amounts illegal and unfair trade practice. The complainant was not ready to pay the same and said to them that he is ready to unload the article, but the opposite party did not deliver.
2. The complainant submits that, he is a farmer, engaged in fish cultivation and the parcel contained the feed for the fish. Due to non-delivery of the fish feed caused in huge inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. Complainant also submit that, the fish feed is kept in the godown without proper protection may cause fungus and ultimately spoiling the feeds. Hence the complainant prays for a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite party.
3. On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice, the opposite party filed version denying the averments and allegations in the complaint and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and filed on experimental basis.
4. The opposite party denied that on 10/04/2021, the opposite party received four sack of fish feed, that it was parcelled from Perumbavoor and that was not delivered to the complainant. The opposite party further denied that the complainant approached the opposite party on 16/04/2021, that the complainant remitted requisite cost before the opposite party, the remitted amount includes loading and unloading expenses, it is evident from the receipt itself, the opposite party demanded further amount towards loading and unloading, the complainant said to the opposite party that he is not prepared to pay any additional amount, but the opposite party refused to deliver the goods, due to non delivery of the same in time caused much loss, the feed were kept without any safety and security, keeping the same in the godown as such may cause fungus and spoiling the feeds etc are false and so denied.
5. The opposite party submitted that the complainant booked parcel from Perumbavoor in Kerala Road Ways, Parcel Service Company. It is also admitted that the complainant remitted 540/- rupees for loading and unloading of the Article. But the amount Rs. 540/- does not include the cost for unloading the goods from KRS godown to the vehicle of the complainant. The workers are members of Kerala Head load workers welfare Board, Kottakkal and doing loading unloading work and they are not the workers of the opposite party. As per the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board Act, the workers entitled for the wages fixed by the aforesaid Board for loading and unloading. The opposite party contented that the complainant demanded loading of four sack of fish feed into the vehicle of the complainant without any remuneration, but they denied the same. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Police, but they declined to interfere in the dispute stating that they are not prepared to direct workers to upload the sacks without wages. The Police instructed the complainant to approach Labour Office, if there any dispute regarding the wages. Accordingly, the complainant approached the Labour Office with a complaint and the Labour Officer found after enquiry that, there is no reason to interfere in the matter of complaint and refused to entertain the complaint. The complainant on the same day has taken the fish feed from the site. As per the present law an owner of goods is permitted to do loading and unloading work and in the present complaint, the complainant insisted the loading work without any remuneration resulted in the dispute. The complainant actually had hidden all the true facts for filing this complaint. The version has truly narrated the transactions took place in the complaint. The sole reason for the complaint is the unwanted and illegal demands of the complainant. Hence the complaint is without any merit and the same is liable to dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
6. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext.B1 to B3. Ext.A1 is copy of complaint filed by complainant before the District Labour Officer, Malappuram dated 17/04/2021. Ext. A2 is copy of letter issued by the District Labour Officer to the complainant. Ext. A3 is copy of wages of the loading and unloading employees in the Malappuram District. Ext.A4 is copy of GST dated 16/04/2021. Ext. A5 is copy of cash receipt issued by Kerala Roadways Private Limited, Chennai and cash receipt issued from Kerala Roadways Private limited, Branch Office Kottakkal. Ext. B1 is GST invoice, Kerala Roadways Private limited, Branch Office Kottakkal. Ext. B2 is Employer’s list, Head Load Workers Board, Sub Office Kottakkal issued by chairman KHWW Board, Malappuram- Dt, Kottakkal. Ext. B3 is copy of worker list, KHWWB, Sub Office
Kottakkal, issued by Chairman KHWWWB Office, Malappuram.
7. Heard complainant and opposite party. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost.
8. Points No.1 and 2:-
The grievance of the complaint is that four sacks of fish feeds were arrived at the opposite party and accordingly he approached the opposite party, he demanded delivery of goods after remitting the required expenses. He produced Ext. A4 to show the remittance of required expense. The perusal of Ext.A4 reveals that the opposite party collected prime charge Rs.405/- and Rs.120/- as Hamali. So according to complainant, the opposite party has received 120/- rupees towards loading and unloading. So, the complainant claims that he is entitled to unloaded the goods into his vehicle by the opposite party. But the opposite party contented that, the complaint is liable to pay loading and unloading expenses in addition to the paid amount as per Ext. A4. According to opposite party, the amount already paid is towards the expenses for loading and unloading of the goods at the opposite party site and not for unloading to the vehicle of the complainant. But in this case after filing this complaint, the opposite party allowed to take the delivery of the goods from the shop of the opposite party and thereby the complainant himself unloaded the four sacks of fish feed. There is no doubt the opposite party also admitted the owner of goods is permitted to unload his goods by himself. In this complaint, the complainant is a farmer engaged in fish farming which is his livelihood. The complainant required to unload his fish feed from the opposite party. But it was obstructed at the opposite party premises and which lead to filing complaint before this Commission. The document produced by the complainant shows that, he availed service of transporting the fish feed from Perumbavoor to Kottakkal and also reveals the opposite party collected loading and unloading expenses also from the complainant. So, there is a consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party. The opposite party is liable to deliver the goods to the complainant on the basis of Ext. A4 documents. Non-delivery of the fish feeds to the complainant, no doubt, amounts deficiency in service. The reason offered by the opposite party for non-delivering of fish feeds to the complainant cannot be accepted at all. The opposite party himself admitted that the complaint is free to take delivery of the fish feed at his own risk. There is no document to show that the complainant demanded unloading of the fish feeds by the loading and unloading workers of Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board. The document further reveals that the complainant farmer approached the police as well as the Department of Labour to redress his grievance but it was vain. We do not find the experience of the complainant like farmer as an acceptable one. The commission is not hesitating to find that act of the opposite party as deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to redress his grievance.
9. Due to non delivery of the fish feeds, the complainant approached immediately the police as well as the Department of Labour for his grievance. Due to non addressing of the issue, the complainant approached this Commission and on his application an interim order was given to deliver the fish feeds to the complainant and the grievance of the complainant was addressed to a limited extend. Now the issue before the Commission is that, whether the complainant sustained any loss due to the act of the opposite party and if what extend. The complainant has not produced any document to show the loss sustained to the complainant. Due to want of sufficient evident we do not find that complaint sustained to any financial loss due to the act of the opposite party. But we find that, the complainant might have suffered some inconvenience and hardships due to the act of the opposite party for which we finds that Rs. 5,000/- will be a reasonable amount of compensation on that count. The complainant was constrained to drag before the Police officer, labour department and finally this Commission on various occasions. So, the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable amount towards the cost and we fix the same as Rs. 5000/-.
10. In the light of above facts and circumstances, we allow the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardships to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of proceeding.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint to till date of payment.
Dated this 10thday of January, 2023.
MOHANDASANK., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMANC., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5
Ext. A1 : Copy of complaint filed by complainant before the District Labour Officer,
Malappuram dated 17/04/2021.
Ext. A2 : Copy of letter issued by the District Labour Officer to the complainant.
Ext. A3 : Copy of wages of the loading and unloading employees in the Malappuram
District.
Ext. A4 : Copy of GST dated 16/04/2021.
Ext. A5 : Copy of cash receipt issued by Kerala Roadways Private Limited, Chennai
and cash receipt issued from Kerala Roadways’ Private Limited, Branch
Office, Kottakkal.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext. B1 :GST invoice, Kerala Roadways Private Limited, Branch Office, Kottakkal.
Ext. B2: Employer’s list, Head Load Workers Board, Sub Office Kottakkal issued by
Chairman KHWW Board Malappuram- Dt , Kottakkal.
Ext. B3: Copy of worker list, KHWWB, sub office Kottakkal , issued by Chairman
KHWWWB Office , Malappuram .
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
