Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/17/90

Dr.Food & banatone - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.R.L logistics(P)ltd - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jun 2022

ORDER

   BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

   SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN               : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA .G.NAIR           : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                           : MEMBER

CC.NO.90/2017 (Filed on: 01.03.2017)

ORDER DATED :  24.06.2022

COMPLAINANT

          M/s.Dr.Food & Banatone Industries,

          Kochuveli, Plot-16 & 17,

          I.D.A. Thiruvananthapuram – 695021

          Rep.by its C.E.O, Mr.ShajanAbraham

 

          (By Adv. C.John Lawrence & Vishnu S Panicker)

                                                          VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

         M/s.V.R.L.Logistics Ltd,

         Having its Registered & Administrative Office

          Bangaluru Road, Varur, Hubbalie – 581 207

          Karnataka, Rep.by its Managing Director,

          Dr.Vijayasankeshwar

         (By Adv.Rajmohan.C.J)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR                   : MEMBER

1.       The complainant is the CEO of Dr.Food & Banatone Industries, Kochuveli, Thiruvananthapuram. In the present case, a consignment containing 50 boxes was sent to M/s.Jayanti Cold Storage, Paras Sales Corporation, Shiv Market, Pansari Bazar, Alwar – 301001. But unfortunately due to certain technical reasons it was returned by the M/s.Jayanti Cold Storage, containing 50 boxes of 20 kg, powder, through the very transporting Co. But the consignment reached the destination Veli, Thiruvananthapuram in a very bad and totally damaged condition. Out of the 50 boxes sent to the complainant 33 boxes were of no use and not at all usable. These boxes had to be destroyed and the rest 17 boxes are used by the complainant. The damage happened due to the casual and careless handling of goods. The entire material was spilled outside the boxes and in the vehicle too. This resulted in a heavy loss to the extent of Rs.2,69.854.20. This shows that the damage was caused due to the most careless manner in which to baby power product was handled. The company used to send similar consignments in the past to various locations and no damage was reported earlier. Complainant took up the matter with the local office and they advised to file complaint with the Head office. A series of letters were sent to the opposite party, but nothing tangible took place, not even an interim reply. The first letter was dated 12.10.2016 and there was no reply. By the callousness and indifference on the part of the opposite party, complainant sustained a financial loss of Rs.2,69,854.20/-. Hence the complaint.

2.       Version filed by the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The business run by the complainant is of commercial nature and if any service is availed by the complainant as alleged it is for commercial purpose, associated with his business. The complainant has not even mentioned in the date of booking of the consignment and its number. The complainant has not even produced any receipt for booking the consignment from Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant here has not mentioned the date and consignment no of the parcel booked from Rajasthan. The party who booked the said parcel from Rajasthan is not made a party in this complaint. The actual facts at the time of booking the parcel are only known to them ie, M/s.Jayanti Cold Storage, Alwar Rajasthan. Also the submission of the complainant that “ the consignment was returned by M/s.Jayanthi Cold Storage due to some technical reasons” is not at all acceptable or believable in reasonable sense. The actual reason why it was returned can only be stated by the said M/s.Jayanthi Cold Storage who is not made a party deliberately in the complaint. In this juncture the actual condition of the packets in the consignment while returning back is also a matter in question, which also can only be addressed by the Jayanthi Cold Storage and it may presume that at the time the consignment was booked from Rajasthan (as alleged by the complainant) it was in a bad condition. The complainant had not given any complaint to the local office as submitted. If any damage was caused to the consignment they should have asked for a damage certificate and that is also not done by the complainant at the time of delivery. The date of delivery of the consignment was also not mentioned as it is only a cooked up story by the complainant. The loss stated by the complainant is an imaginary one and must be proved by the complainant with strict documentary evidence. The opposite parties have not received any letters as alleged by the complainant. The authenticity and genuineness of the photographs must be proved by the complainant with strict proof. The opposite party is not at all liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,69.854/- to the complainant at any point of time. And the relief sought for by the complainant is not at all allowable. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3.       Complainant filed affidavit and documents Exts.P1 to P3 marked. Opposite parties not filed proof affidavit and no documents produced.        

Issues to be considered are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. If so what is the relief and cost.

Issues I & II

4.       The complainant working as the CEO of Company and running the business to earn his livelihood. The complainant admitted that company is engaged in manufacturing Banana Powder and Marketing the same throughout India. The opposite party has not produced any documents to prove that the business is commercial nature. So the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence complaint is maintainable.

5.       According to the complainant a consignment containing 50 boxes was sent to Jayanthi Cold Storage Rajasthan through opposite party. Due to certain technical reasons it was returned by them containing 50 boxes of 20 kg power through opposite party. Out of the 50 boxes sent to him 33 boxes were of no use and not at all usable and the same. It is evident from Ext.P3 series. As per Exts.P1 & P2 the complainant sent letter to the opposite party. The complainant stated that no reply was sent by the opposite party. The complainant was not cross examined by the opposite party. The first contention raised by the opposite party is that the complainant has not produced any documents to show the Banana Powder sent to Jayanthi Cold Storage and returned the items to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant produced the documents of Tax invoice dated 13.06.2016 and 25.07.2016 and copy of letter dated 08.10.2016 to returned the banana powder to complainant through opposite party. But the opposite party has not verified the documents and cross examined the complainant. The opposite party has not produced documents to disprove the case of complainant. At the same time, though the complainant was able to establish that he has sustained loss, the complainant has not succeeded in establishing that he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2,68,854/-, by adducing cogent evidence. Hence we assess the loss of the complainant  as Rs.1,00,000/-

          In view of the above discussions we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite party has to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as the financial loss and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2500/- as cost of the proceedings, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance. 

                  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

         Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 24^th day of June, 2022.

                                                                                     Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN     : PRESIDENT

                                                                                            Sd/-

PREETHA .G.NAIR    : MEMBER

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                         VIJU.V.R  : MEMBER

be/