State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.R.Kannan vs M/S, Blue Dart Express Limited, on 29 November, 2023
1
Date of filing:31.8.2017
IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE Hon'ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
CC.NO. 286/2017
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023
G.R. Kannan
Partner
Teems Engineering Construction
No.23, Flat No.1, River View Apartments
1st Cresent Park Road
Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 020 ....Complainant
Vs
1. M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited
No.9 to 13, 247/A, A Nithiyanand Complex
Bund Garden Road
Pune - 411 001
2. M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director
No.9 to 13, 247/A, A Nithiyanand Complex
Bund Garden Road
Pune - 411 001
3. M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited
Rep. by its Branch Manager
No.47-100 Swarnadharashan, Ground Floor
Gandhi Nagar II Main Road
Adyar, Chennai - 600 020 ....Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : M/s C. Kasirajan
Counsel for 1 to 3 opposite parties : M/s. A. John Britto
This complaint coming before me for hearing finally on 25.8.2023 and on
hearing the arguments of counsel appearing on bothsides and upon perusing the
material records this Commission made the following order:
2
ORDER
Justice R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint has been filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against the opposite parties , praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, towards compensation alongwith cost.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issues involved in this case, are as follows:
It is the case of the complainant that when he came to know about the tender notice issued by TANTRANSCO intended to apply for the same. The tenders are relating to the work for (1) Supplying, Transportation and erection of GI Tower & Structures for 230 KV Yard and filling the 230 KV, 110KVSS and Transformer Yards with gravel and spreading with stone dust and HBG metal for the proposed 230/110 KV Sub- station at Singarapettai (2) Supply, Transport of WC and VC columns with books, GI Lattice structures supporting for 230/110 KV Yard at the proposed 230/110 KV Sub- station at Singarapettai. The total value of the tender was fixed at Rs.2,23,30,000/- and Rs.2,34,50,000/- respectively. The last date for receipt of tender was fixed at 14.00 Hrs on 22.11.2016. The complainant was one of the tenderer having very high possibility of getting the tender because of submitting highly competitive rates and successful execution of many such projects in the past for TANTRANSCO. The complainant had made a quote and sent the tender documents containing all the details in two separate covers vide courier way Bill No.AWB14854552450 through the 3 rd 3 opposite party's office at Adyar on 21.11.2016 at 19.25 Hrs. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1150/- for which receipt was issued by the 3rd opposite party vide receipt No.944440. The two tender forms in two separate covers were put into a single packet of the opposite party. It was also promised and confirmed that the covers containing the tender forms would be delivered on 22.11.2016 before 14.00 Hrs. On that promise the complainant had paid money for the services to be provided by the opposite parties.
While the complainant was tracking the delivery details it was shown that the shipment was delivered on 22.11.2016 at about 10.24 Hrs. The said shipment alleged to have been delivered to one Venkatesh in his personal capacity without any official rubber stamp affixing thereon. It is therefore clear that the shipment was not delivered to the addressee in their office premises. When the complainant made an enquiry with the Chief Engineer, Transmission Project I, TANTRANSCO, Guindy, Chennai, it was not informed that the courier was not received by them. Because of the non-delivery of the tender documents to the consignee, the complainant could not participate in the tender process. Therefore, the complainant had sent repeated mails to the opposite parties seeking details of delivery. It was understood from one Ms.Vandana working with the opposite party, that the package was delivered on 22.11.2016 at 10.24 Hrs to one Mr.Venkatesh, whose identity was not known. The addressee being a Government Agency, usually acknowledge any petitions, letters, couriers by affixing their rubber stamp and date as a proof of their receipt. But in this case no such rubber stamp affixing or any marking in this regard is found. Therefore, it is clear that the shipment had been delivered to a private person who had no connection with the addressee. 4 Delivery of shipment to anyother person except the consignee is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant suffered a huge loss and reputation in the eye of the competitors. He therefore, sent a legal notice on 9.12.2016, indicating the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and demanding Rs.25 lakhs towards the loss suffered by the complainant. But the opposite party replied with vexatious statement stating that their quantum is limited to Rs.5000/-, but they had not refused their deficiency in service anywhere in their reply. Therefore the present complaint was filed by the complainant praying for the relief as stated supra.
3. The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties by filing their version as follows:
The complaint has to be dismissed in limine as the complainant has no locustandi to file the complaint as against the opposite parties 1 to 3. The complaint was filed by the complainant in his individual capacity and not by the company viz. M/s. Teems Engineering Constructions. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The value of the tender, the tender notice and the last date of receipt of tender was not proved. The complainant had not filed any substantial documents to substantiate their case.
The complainant had booked a shipment with the 3rd opposite party on 21.11.2016 in Airway Bill No.14854562450. But they are not aware of the contents of the documents sent by the complainant in the consignment. The shipment was delivered at the address given in the airway bill. Merely because there is no rubber 5 stamp affixing in way bill, the complainant cannot presume that the person viz.
Venkatesh received the shipment in his personal capacity and not on official capacity and on that reason cannot come to a conclusion that the shipment was not delivered to the addressee in their office premises on 22.1.2016 by the 3 rd opposite party. Similarly, the complainant had not filed any supporting documents from the addressee that they have not received the tender, and no one is working in the name of Venkatesh in their organisation. Since the shipment was delivered in the address given by the complainant, it cannot be said that because of non-delivery of the tender document to the consignee, the complainant quotes could not be considered by TANTRANSCO. Further it is only a presumption and assumption on the part of the complainant that as if they would get the tender. The complainant failed to file the copy of the tender application applied with quoting of rates, sent through this opposite parties. Moreover on the ground of mere presumption on future profit or future loss a complaint cannot be filed by claiming compensation or anyother relief from the opposite parties for the reason which has actually not happened at all. The actual value of a parcel shall be ascertained by reference to its cost by repair or replacement/ resale or fair market value not exceeding the original cost of the article actually paid by the shipper subject to and within overall limit of Rs.5000/-. Thus they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of their case, alongwith proof affidavits 8 documents are filed by the complainant, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A8 and 4 documents filed by the opposite parties, which are marked as Ex.B1 to B4. Written arguments are filed by both parties. 6
5. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the complainant made a detailed submission adverting to the entire averments made in the complaint. The main submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant is a contractor, and also one of the partner in the complainant company who is engaged and carrying on business under the name and style of Teems Engineering Construction. The complainant had forwarded tender document to the Chief Engineer, TANTRANSCO, Guindy, Chennai, through the opposite parties. The opposite parties are one of the leading integrated Air Express Courier Company. The last date for receipt of the tender was fixed at 14.00 Hrs on 22.11.2016. The complainant was having very high possibility of getting tender allotted to him. He sent the tender documents in two separate covers vide way bill No.AWB14854552450, through the 3rd opposite party office at Adyar on 21.11.2016 at 19.25 Hrs. When he was tracking the details of delivery, it was shown that the shipment was delivered on 22.11.2016 at about 10.24 Hrs, and the said shipment was delivered to one Mr.Venkatesh in his personal capacity, without any official rubber stamp affixing thereon. Actually the cover was addressed to the Chief Engineer, Project I, TANTRANSCO, Guindy. When enquired with the addressee, it was informed that that they have not received the cover. As a result of which the complainant could not participate in the tender process, and thus had suffered loss and mental agony. Therefore, the service of the opposite parties is deficient, for which the complainant is entitled for compensation.
7
6. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the shipment sent by the complainant was delivered in the address given by the complainant. Merely, because there was no rubber stamp seal affixed in the waybill, it cannot be presumed that one person viz. Mr.Venkatesh, received the tapal in his individual capacity, and not in the official capacity. Furthermore the contents in the cover had not been disclosed to the opposite parties that it contains the tender documents. Even according to the complainant it is only an application for tender by quoting the rate. Therefore, it is only a presumption and assumption of the complainant that they would have got the tender. No deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite parties. Thus he sought for dismissal of the complaint.
7. On careful consideration of the submission made by bothsides, I have gone through the materials placed on record.
8. The main grievance and allegation of the complainant is that the tender document sent to the Chief Engineer, TANTRANSCO, through the 3rd opposite party was delivered to one person by name Venkatesh, and not to the office of the addressee. The cover was received by Mr.Venkatesh only on his personal capacity, since the addressee being a Government organisation, will not receive any document, without affixing their seal. Since there is no such seal affixed therein, it could be understood that the shipment was delivered to a wrong person viz. Venkatesh, and not to the office of TANTRANSCO.
8
The learned counsel for the complainant had further submitted that when they made an enquiry with the Chief Engineer Office, TANTRANSCO, Guindy, Chennai, as to whether any person is employed in the name of Venkatesh, it was informed by them that no such person was working there in such name. Due to the deficiency of the opposite parties, the complainant missed the fair opportunity of getting the tender, thus they suffered loss and mental agony.
9. Whereas, according to the opposite parties, the shipment was delivered to the office of the Chief Engineer, TANTRANSCO, Guindy, Chennai, as specified by the complainant and the same was received by one of their staff viz. Mr.Venkatesh. Since no official seal of TANTRANSCO, GUINDY was affixed in the waybill, it cannot be presumed that the shipment was not delivered to the addressee. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. As per the terms and conditions of the Airway Bill, if at all, for mis-delivery of the shipment, the opposite parties are liable to pay only Rs.5000/- towards compensation .
10. Having considered the submissions made, the only point that has to be decided is that whether the complainant has proved his case that the shipment was not delivered by the opposite parties to the addressee viz the Chief Engineer Office, TANTRANSCO, Guindy, Chennai.
9
In order to find out the above fact, the TANTRANSCO should have been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. But the complainant miserably failed in this regard. The complainant also neither produced any document to prove that they applied for the tender to the opposite parties nor proved that the document sent through the opposite parties had not been delivered to the addressee. The complainant also had not produced any document to the effect that the amount quoted by the complainant is lesser than that of the successful bidder. Therefore, in the absence of any valid proof, merely based on the bald and vague statement of the complainant it cannot be decided that the shipment was not delivered to the addressee.
This complaint mainly revolves only on the question whether the shipment was delivered to the correct addressee or not; since the allegation of the complainant has not been proved beyond doubt, this commission cannot fix the liability on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore I am of the opinion that the complainant had miserably failed establish his case, and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
R SUBBIAH
PRESIDENT
10
Exhibits filed on the side of complainant
A1 21.11.2016 Cash Receipt for Rs.1150/- issued by Blue Dart
A2 21.11.2016 Way bill issued by Blue Dart
A3 22.11.2016 Tracking details
A4 Copy of Emails sent by complainant to Ops.
A5 Copy of emails from Vandana @ Blue Dart.com
A6 29.11.2016 -do-
A7 09.12.2016 Legal notice to opposite parties
A8 09.01.2016 Reply notice from opposite parties
Exhibits filed on the side of Opposite party: ....Nil......
B1 07.02.2018 Authority letter
B2 21.11.2016 Air way bill
B3 09.12.2016 Legal notice
B4 09.01.2016 Reply notice
R SUBBIAH
PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
Rsh/d/rsj/ Open court