State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Videocon International Ltd vs The Manager, M/S Air State Courier on 7 December, 2009
Date of filing:10.12.1999 ] Date of order:07.12.2009 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . F.A. NO.: 2379 OF 1999 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 164 OF 1996 DISTRICT FORUM : AHMEDNAGAR. 1. Videocon International Ltd., Auto Cars Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad and Branch Office at Banglore Through its Authorized Signatory. 2. Pinnacle Exports Pvt.Ltd., S.No.273, Mahadeo Nagar, Burhannagar, Ahmednagar, Through its Authorized Singatory. APPELLANTS (Org.Complainants) VERSUS The Manager, M/s Air State Courier, No.5, Venkateshwara Market, Ground Floor, Avenue Road, Banglore. RESPONDENT (Org.Opponent) Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.D.D.Choudhary for appellant, None for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The present appeal is filed by Videocon International Ltd. and Pinnacle Exports Pvt.Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1999 in complaint case No. 164/96 passed by District Forum, Ahmednagar.
2. Appellants/Org.Complainants`s case before the Forum is that, appellant No.1 is Public Limited Company having it`s registered office at Auto Cars, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. Appellant No.2 is Private Limited Co. incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act having registered office at Burhanagar, Ahmednagar. Opponent No.2 is carrying business of courier having registered office at Andheri, Bombay and its branch office at Banglore. Opponent No.1 is incharge of the said branch office at Banglore. It is contended that M/s AKJ Enterprises, Banglore have sent articles from Banglore to Ahmednagar after completing job work.
The said articles were dispatched by job workers from Banglore to Ahmednagar after completing job work and value of the same is Rs.23,400/-. It is contended that complainant No.1 & 2 are group companies. Therefore M/s AKJ Enterprises had handed over the said articles to Bangalore branch of complainant No.1for onwards transmission to the complainant at Ahmednagar. Accordingly branch prepared the parcel and handed over to appellant No.1 for purpose of onward delivery to Ahmednagar on 30.5.1995. It was the duty of opponents to deliver the parcel to Ahmednagar. However opponents failed to deliver the said articles to Ahmednagar. Thus they are guilty of unfair trade practice and misconduct. It is contended that complainant hired services of opponent for consideration and opponents have failed to deliver the articles to the complainants office at Ahmednagar and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.23,400/- . Thus complainants approached the Forum for compensation of Rs.23,400/- with interest, also for damages and notice charges.
3. Respondents appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. They have denied the contention raised by appellants. It is contended that parcel contained some variable attenuator was handed over to opponent No.1 for being delivered to opponent No.2 at Ahmednagar without certifying its contents or its value. No bill, whatsoever nature was entrusted to opponent No.1 at the time of entrustment of the said parcel disclosing its contents or its value. It is contended that opponent No.1 by virtue of such entrustment took the said parcel through its agencies as per condition No.7 stipulated in the said AWB No.3527 dated 30.5.1995 and sought to deliver the same to Pinnacle Exports Pvt.Ltd. at Ahmednagar. It is contended that the said Pinnacle Exports Pvt.Ltd. being the group of companies of complainant No.1 appears to have taken the delivery of the said parcel by affixing the seal of Videocon International Ltd. Ahmednagar, on or about 2.6.1995. After due delivery of the same, opponent No.1 handed over the said acknowledgement to complainant No.1 at Banglore showing the due delivery of the said parcel to its own company and/or group of company. The concern at complainant No.1 on seeing acknowledgement confirmed the person who had received the parcel belonging to their own company and the delivery so made has reached the destination and received intact. They have denied the contention of guilty of unfair trade practice and complainants have hired services for consideration.
It is contended that opponent No.1 has no previty of contract with complainant No.2. It is contended that complainant No.1 was called upon to produce AWB 3527 dated 30.5.1995 with due acknowledgment of due receipt of the consignment by their office at Ahmednagar as per true Xerox copy of it produced on record.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed opponent to pay Rs.500/- to complainant No.2 within a period of one month towards cost of complaint and Rs.100/- as compensation for wrong delivery of the parcel to other group of company.
Amounts are to be paid within a period of one month, on failure the same is to carry interest @ 18% p.a.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Ahmednagar, original complainants came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondents. Learned counsel Shri.D.D.Choudhary appeared on behalf of appellants. None appeared on behalf of respondents. We heard learned counsel Shri.Choudhary for appellant. Learned counsel Shri.Choudhary submitted that they have denied that complainant No.1 has acknowledged the parcel. They have also denied that parcel was handed over to representative of complainant No.1. He submitted that it was the duty of opponent to see that parcel is delivered to Pinnacle Export Pvt.Ltd. He submitted that they had informed respondent P.O.D. copy showing receipt of material does not bear stamp of Videocon International Ltd.
They have not received the material.
He submitted that Forum did not consider this aspect and erred in allowing the complaint in toto.
7. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the argument advanced by both counsels. Parcel was delivered by M/s AKJ Enterprises, Bangalore for onward transmission to complainant No.2 at Ahmednagar. According to complainant same was not delivered to them whereas according to respondent they have delivered the parcel to branch office of complainant not at Ahmednagar on 2.6.1995. They claim AWB 3527 dated 30.5.1995 due bears the stamp and receipt of the branch of complainant No.1 at Ahmednagar. According to them they affixed seal of Videocon Enterprises, Ahmednagar on AWB 3527 dated 30.05.1995 which was lateron handed over to the office of complainant No.1 at Bangalore. It is to be noted that complainant No.1 was called upon to produce AWB 3527 dated 30.5.1995 with due acknowledgement of due receipt of the consignment by their office at Ahmednagar. Simply it is their contention that seal of Videocon International Ltd.,Ahmednagar on AWB 3527 dated 30.5.95 does not belongs to their company and none of the representative has put his signature on receipt of parcel in question. When complainant denied the seal and signature on AWB 3527 dated 30.5.1995 it was necessary to produce the same before the Forum. It has come in evidence that same had been handed over to complainant No.1 by respondent. It also be noted that according to affidavit of complainant value of pieces of parcel was of Rs.39256/- and they were required to incur expenses of Rs.23,400/- for job work. Thus the total value of parcel was Rs.62,656/- if the value of parcel was Rs.62,656/- it is not known why complainants are claiming Rs.23,400/- which was alleged to have been incurred for job work, why they are not claiming total price of the articles amounting to Rs.62,656/-. If really parcel was not received by them they would have claimed entire value of the parcel amounting to Rs.62,656/- including expenses of job work. We have mentioned that complainant denied the stamp which is affixed on delivery receipt. Not only that they have denied the signature of their representative on it, if it is so question arises why they did not produce AWB 3527 dated 30.05.2005 which was handed over by respondent to complainant No.1. It was for them to get proved that the stamp and signature on the same do not belong to them. The Forum has rightly drawn the adverse inference. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Forum. We pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Sd/- sd/-
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane