State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Head Business And Operation (East) Gati ... vs Suranjan Chanda on 28 June, 2013
D R A F T State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. FA/313/11 (Arisen out of Judgment dt. 28.04.2011 in Case No. 105/2008 of DCDRF, Kolkata-I ) DATE OF FILING : 08.07.11 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 28.06.13 APPELLANT : Head Business and Operation (East), Gati Limited, P-18, Taratala Road, Kolkata- 700 088. RESPONDENTS : 1. Suranjan Chanda, R/o S 8,Golf Green Complex, Kolkata- 700 095. 2. The General Manager, S.T. Cargo, Hariyan Street, Cantonment Pallavaram, Chennai- 600043. 3. The General Manager, Supreme Cargo Limited, No. 19. Narayanappa Street, Mannady, Chennai- 600 001. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. SHANKAR COARI MEMBER : MR. D.BHATTACHARYA FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr Ritobrata Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Ved Sharma., Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. D.BHATTACHARYA, LD.MEMBER This appeal is directed against Order No. 24 dated 28.04.2011 in Case No. 105/2008 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I , Kolkata .
The case of the Complainant/Respondent No.1 in his petition of complaint is that he sent 22 number of boxes of personal belongings (clothing,household items, souvenir , crystal showpieces) collected from different parts of the world , from Kuwait to Kolkata, through Al sayer/Supreme Cargo, Kuwait, by sea cargo on 30.04.2006 and insured the said materials for damage and loss for Rs.75,000/-.He received the materials in damaged condition from GATI Ltd., Kolkata on 08.08.2006, which sent the said materials (22 boxes) in a half lorry type vehicle without any lifting trolley/ other proper tools and gadgets with two very young unskilled workers, which he wanted to return, but on the request of GATI Ltd. and assurance of payment of damage charges, etc., he agreed to accept with comments on the delivery bill. Said GATI Ltd. sent one Third Party Sea Marine Surveyor, Mr. Mritunjoy Saha on 15.09.2006 to inspect and find out the extent of the damage , who after survey recommended Rs.29,000/-, although the estimate of damage by the Complainant was Rs.44,500/-. Further, said Gati Ltd. have sent two officers, first, Mr. Natty Sreenivas and secondly, Ms. S. Bandhyapadhyay to the Complainants house to verify and assess the damage, who agreed to settle the matter. But, to his utter surprise, after having correspondence for about a year, GATI Ltd. have sent to him an ultimatum through e-mail stating that they are not directly involved in the matter and asked him to claim before ST Cargo, which was replied by him on 04.02.2008, but without any further reply from them. Accordingly, the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata.
Before the said Ld. District Forum, only the OP No.1, i.e., the Appellant has contested the case by filing a W.V. in which by denying the material allegations levelled against it , it has been contended that it received those goods on sealed boxes from ST Cargo at Chennai who acted as a custom clearing agent and that it had no opportunity to inspect the nature of the goods and its condition, but transported the same to the Complainant in the same condition as received from the said ST Cargo. The goods were packed by some unskilled people having no knowledge of packing so that it can withstand the regular wear and tear of a long sea voyage. Further, the goods were insured by the Complainant, but the insurance company has not been made a party in the case. OP No.1 visited the premises of the Complainant only to ascertain the damage and to issue Observation Note (OBN) and Certificate of Fact (COF) so that the Complainant can claim damage from his shipper or the Insurance Company as the case may be. But, O.P No.1 is in no way liable and /or responsible to pay to the Complainant any loss. Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the case .
By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the petition of complaint on contest against OP No.1 and exparte against OP Nos. 2 and 3 with cost and directed all such OPs to pay a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand) only to the Complainant jointly and /or severally and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand) only making a grant total of Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five thousand) only within 45 days from the date communication of the order, failing which it will carry an interest @ 10 % p.a till full realization. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with it, the OP No. thereof has assailed the same in this appeal.
It is to be seen and considered if the impugned order suffers from any infirmity as to facts or in law requiring interference in this appeal.
Decision with reasons There is hardly any dispute or confusion regarding breakage and damage of the goods of the Complainant / Respondent No.1 contained in 22 boxes. It is his case that the goods were his collections from different parts of the world while working for about 30 years in U.K. Iran, Iraq and Kuwait. Such goods include clothing, household items, souvenir, crystal showpieces, which are his personal belongings. Shipment was made from Kuwait , through Al sayer/Supreme Cargo, Kuwait, by sea cargo on 30.04.2006 . The same was decargoed at Chennai. And, thereafter, the same was transported through GATI from Chennai to Kolkata by one Rajendheran on behalf of ST Travels , 2/2 Veterline, Pallavaram, Chennai 43 as Consignor by making a declaration. The declaration shows that the household articles were sent to GATI on 19.07.2006 and the Consignee being Complainant/Respondent No.1, and it was certified therein that the said Consignor booked the said goods at his own risk and made own arrangements for the coverage of risks while in transit. It was ultimately delivered by GATI to the Complainant/ Respondent No.1 on 08.08.2006 by a delivery note bearing Docket No. 410289477 and on the delivery bill itself, the Complainant/Respondent No.1 reported that three trunks are badly damaged and there is poor way of handling due to lack of facilities. Thereafter, by an e-mail to GATI dated 15.08.2006, he further informed that the delivery people of GATI are untrained/unskilled and used very primitive method without any trolley or insufficient person to handle such heavy boxes ( only 2 labours ). As a result, all the 3 aluminum boxes along with other boxes are heavily damaged . On opening the boxes, he found most of the valuable items are heavily damaged. By an e-mail, Mr. Patram Choudhary informed the Complainant/ Respondent No.1, with reference to his letter dated 12.09.2006 against the Docket 410289477 dated 19.07.2006 , ex-Chennai to Kolkata, that they have already given instruction to the concerned Manager who will resolve the issue . It is found that subsequently GATI sent Third Party Surveyor on their own to assess the damage and after his assessment , GATI also sent two Sr. Executives,Mr. N. Sreenivas and Ms. S. Bandopadhyay to witness and discuss to solve the matter amicably . Further, in reference to Complainants mail dated 11.03.2007 and her visit to the Complainants place on 13.03.2007, Ms. Sarmistha Bandoyapadhyay informed the Complainant that the shipment was received by GATI from ST Cargo Chennai and they have already issued a damage certificate ( No. 117540 dated 28.09.2006) after proper survey of the shipment vide Dkt No. 410289477 dt 19.07.2006 and that the certificate has already been sent to their Chennai office and they have already taken up the matter with ST Cargo. The Complainant was also requested to lodge the claim with ST Cargo Chennai. Accordingly, by an e-mail dated 25.01.2007, Mr. N. Sreenivas of GATI informed the Complainant, with reference to Claim For Material Damaged Due To Poor Handling, that they are in the process of settling it and by this month end it will be done. Before that, the Complainant forwarded the e-mail received from Kuwait Shipping Co. to Mr. P. Choudhary of GATI, in which it made out that as the Complainant has accepted the offer given to him by GATI and signed the release papers and therefore the Complainant must follow up the matter with GATI to get his settlement , they being the delivery agent. Lastly, it is found that by an e-mail dated 28.01.2008, S.A. Khan of GATI informed the Complainant that the consignment was handled by M/s ST Cargo from Kuwait to Chennai and thereafter GATI Ltd. has booked the shipment from Chennai to Kolkata, and on request of the Complainant, they have engaged a Surveyor and on the basis of the survey report, they have issued the damage certificate having No. 117540 dtd 28.09.2006 in the name of the Complainant, which he refused to accept and that the Complainant has to settle the claim through M/s. ST Cargo Chennai. To which, he made a reply on 04.02.2008 stating that after the Third Party Surveyor assessed the damage , GATI sent two Sr. Executives, Mr. N. Shreenivas and Ms. S. Bandopadhyay to witness and discuss to solve the matter amicably. He did not so far receive any damage certificate (Survey Report) from GATI/or the Third Party Surveyor, but has seen the very poor way of handling by the two young thin and thickly built persons of GATI who simply dropped the boxes and dragged/rolled the boxes. As Kuwait Shipping Co., i.e., N.M. Alsayer Freight Services asked him to follow up the matter with GATI to get his settlement as GATI is the delivery agent, so, GATI has been asked to find out from their records who are responsible for the damage and at what stage the damage was done and settle the matter among themselves. Thereafter, this complaint case followed.
All such materials on record very much show that the Appellant/ GATI made investigation of the damage by a Surveyor who purportedly found the damage to be true and recommended Rs. 29,000/- for the damage. And, thereafter, their two officials visited the place of the Respondent No.1 to verify the matter and also that the Appellant agreed to settle the matter, but afterwards it retracted . In this sphere, Ld. District Forum took a justified stand and directed all the three OPs, including OP No.1/GATI, who only contested the case, to pay a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the Complainant jointly and / or severally and a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Such an order is a proper one in the whole perspective and spectrum of the case. Obviously, the Appellant cannot shirk its liability in the matter. In none of the replies to the e-mails of the Respondent No.1 and also in the W.V. , Appellant challenged specifically the contentions of the Respondent No.1 that the articles were mishandled by the two delivery boys of the Appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is a wholesome one and should be sustained.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent No.1 and ex parte against the other Respondents but without costs. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
MR. D.BHATTACHARYA MR. SHANKAR COARI MEMBER MEMBER