State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Professional Courier, vs The Maragodu Vyavasya, on 12 November, 2024
1 Appeal No.2825/2016
Date of Filing : 19.10.2016
Date of Disposal : 12.11.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.2825/2016
The Professional Courier,
Domestic and International Courier and Cargo,
Near Ganesh Medical, College Road,
Madikeri, Kodagu.
Rep. by its Manager Ebrahim Kutty. ..Appellant/s
(By Adv.Sri.C.H.Ramachandra Reddy)
Vs
1. The Maragodu Vyavasaya,
Sahakara Bank Niyamitha, Maragodu,
Now Changed into Maragodu Primary
Agriculture Credit Co-Operative
Society Ltd., Maragodu,
Rep by its President
B.S.Yogendra S/o Sheshagiri
Maragodu Village and Post,
Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District.
2. The Manager,
Professional Courier,
Shop No.18 And 19,
Gurunanak Plaza, Mumbai,
Pune Road, Highway Pune,
Maharashtra State. ..Respondent/s
2 Appeal No.2825/2016
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP.1/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.27.09.2016 passed in CC/108/2014 on the file of Kodagu District Forum, Madikeri. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard, now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether the impugned order dtd.27.09.2016 passed in CC/108/2014 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?
3. The Complainant is a society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960, is represented by its President Mr.B.S.Yogendra. The President of the said society alleged against OPs.1 & 2 that on 05.09.2014, society had sent one covering letter with DD.589704 addressed to the Manager, Ammunition Factory, Khadki, Pune-411003 through OP.1 and on the same day, society had also sent an envelope containing a DD to one S.U.Patel of Pune through OP.1 vide receipt 3 Appeal No.2825/2016 no.MRC1885782. However, the courier addressed to the said S.U.Patel sent on 05.09.2014 was delivered on 12.09.2014 but the courier dtd.05.09.2014 addressed to the Manager, Ammunition Factory, Khadki, Pune was delivered only on 01.10.2014 through OP.2. According to Complainant as per the advice note no.8464/M-180/32247/12B(P)20140081, dtd.08.07.2014 of the Manager, Ammunition Factory, Khadki, Pune, had ordered to supply sl.no.32247 of 10000 numbers of SA Bore 65 MM paper cartridges and in respect of such supply had sent a DD for Rs.4,77,811/- along with a covering letter dtd.05.09.2014, which according to the society had to reach before 20.09.2014 as per the advice note sent by the Manager Ammunition Factory, Khadki, Pune. However, there was an inordinate delay in delivery of the said envelope, as a result, rejected the order and forfeited EMD of Rs.5,000/- vide letter dtd.25.10.2014. The society had also alleged against OPs that due to rendering deficiency in service on the part of OPs, society had to spent more than Rs.10,000/- and had lost credibility among customers as they have lost their net income of Rs.68,725/- for the year 2014-15 when compared to 2011-12. OP.1 had contested the complaint, while OP.2 placed exparte. OP.1 denied rendering deficiency in service. In view of rival 4 Appeal No.2825/2016 contentions of the parties to the complaint the Commission held an enquiry. Received affidavit evidence and documents found OPs.1 & 2 have rendered deficiency in service are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.68,725/- along with interest at 10% p.a. and also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. It is this order is assailed in this appeal contending that if there was any delay was caused by OP.2, who has been placed exparte in the complaint and if for any reason liability if any is limited to Rs.100/- per consignment for any cause. However, District Forum failed to appreciate the principles of doctrine of proportionality while passing the impugned order.
4. It has come in the enquiry that for the delay in delivery to the Manager, Ammunition Factory, Khadki, Pune Complainant has lost Rs.5,000/-, since, such amount was forfeited towards EMD. It was intimated to complainant vide letter dtd.25.10.2014. It is also found from the enquiry that OP.1 had sent envelope through OP.2 was the late delivery, as such, we also found force in the contention of the Appellant/OP.1 that the delay in delivery of the said envelope was not due to rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP.1 but due to OP.2 was not at all appreciated by the District Forum. In our view since both are 5 Appeal No.2825/2016 parties in this consumer complaint and the OP no.1/appellant is amenable to complainant. In other words inter-se dispute if any between OP.1 and 2 is nothing to do with the complainant and inter-se dispute between OPs.1 & 2 has to be resolved between them only. In other words, Appellant/OP.1 has to resolve his dispute with OP.2, separately and not in this consumer complaint. It is also true that the consignment receipt is a non negotiable consignment note and is subject to standard conditions of carriage, carrier's liability is limited to Rs.100/- per consignment for any cause, but facts remain found from the enquiry due to delayed delivery of envelope, EMD of Rs.5,000/- was forfeited and also had to spent Rs.10,000/- and due to non- supply of the said cartridges lost their credibility among their customers. It has also come in the enquiry that Complainant has approached Appellant herein and have spent some miscellaneous expenses and altogether have spent more than 10,000/-. However, the District Forum failed to consider the consignment receipt and the terms & conditions of the consignment awarded Rs.68,725/- as compensation for the loss sustained by the society when compared to the year 2011-12 which in our view is beyond the scope of consumer laws. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that impugned order 6 Appeal No.2825/2016 needs to be modified suitably and in the result we proceed to allow the appeal in part. Consequently modified the impugned order dtd.27.09.2016 passed in CC/108/2014 on the file of Kodagu District Forum, Madikeri in the following terms:
OPs.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- for rendering deficiency in service and do pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount awarded to an extent of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation and Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest at 8% p.a. from the date of 25.10.2014 till realisation.
The liability of OPs.1 & 2 is held joint and several. It is hereby clarified inter-se dispute if any between OPs.1 & 2 shall have to be resolved between inter-se separately.
5. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
6. Remit back the records/LCR to the concerned District Commission.
7. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*