State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tej Couriers vs Baramati Agro Ltd. & Ors on 15 July, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.1543 OF 2008 Date of filing: 06/12/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.75/2005 Date of order : 15/07/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KOLHAPUR 1. TEJ Couriers 517E, Pune Bangalore Road District Kolhapur 416 001 2. TEJ Couriers-Baramati branch Taluka Baramati, Dist.Pune 3. TEJ Couriers-Sangli branch District Sangli 4. Mrs.Sadhana Ghatge Managing Director of TEJ Couriers Pvt.Ltd. A division of Ghatge Patil Consultancy 517 E, Pune Bangalore Road District Kolhapur 416 001 ..Appellants/org.O.P.nos.1-4 v/s. 1.Baramati Agro Ltd. Taluka Baramati, District Pune Through its General Manager Mr.Babasaheb V.Suryawanshi AT & Post Pimpli, Taluka Baramati District Pune .Respondent/org.complainant 2. Mr.Shrikrishna D.Deshpande @ Rajendra Kale At & Post Mhada colony, Abhaynagar District Sangli Respondent/org.O.P.no.5 3. Mr.Ganesh Pandurang Kulkarni At & Post Chandani chowk Dist.Sangli .Respondent/org.O.P.no.6 4. State Bank of India, Sangli branch through the Branch Manager District Sangli .Respondent/org.O.P.no.7 5. State Bank of India, Baramati branch through the Branch Manager District Pune .Respondent/org.O.P.no.8 Quorum: Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase-Honble President Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar-Honble Member Present: Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the appellants. Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for respondent nos.4&5 : ORDER:
Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar-Honble Member This is an appeal filed by the appellants/original opponent nos.1-4 against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur dated 16/9/2008. Sum and substance of the facts leading to the appeal can be summarized as under:-
Complainant had purchased demand draft for Rs.1,47,452/-, Rs.3,32,020/- and Rs.7,161/- from the branch of State Bank, Baramati. Complainant/respondent no.1 had handed over the drafts in the office of opponent no.2 on 08/7/1999 for sending it to original opponent nos.9, 10 & 11 -Mr.Sadashiv Bapu Koli, Mahesh & Co. and Aaishwarya Traders respectively. However, on enquiry from the original opponents nos.9, 10 & 11 it is revealed that the demand drafts were not received. Hence complainant/respondent no.1 had informed State Bank Branch Baramati for stopping payment of the bank drafts on 20/7/1999. However, opponent no.7 has encashed the drafts from period 22/7/1999 to 03/8/1999. Hence the complainant/respondent no.1 has issued a notice to the appellants asking them to pay compensation for the deficiency in service.
Appellant no.4 had admitted that the drafts sent by the complainant are missing and the original opponent nos.1 to 4 are the employees of appellant and they have misappropriated the amount. Hence the original complainant/respondent no.1 has filed the consumer complaint requesting to recover an amount of Rs.1,62,835/- from the original opponent nos.1-8 and interest of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.
District Consumer Forum after enquiring into the complaint passed an order directing that the original opponent nos.1 to 6 are jointly and severally responsible for the loss of complainant/ respondent no.1 and hence they should pay an amount of Rs.1,62,835/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 21/07/1999 and cost of Rs.1000/-. It is against this order that the present appeal is preferred.
Admittedly, respondent no.1 has handed over the bank drafts of Rs.1,47,452/-, Rs.3,32,020/- and Rs.7,161/- for sending it to Mr.Sadashiv Bapu Koli, Mahesh & Co. and Aaishwarya Traders. Appellant no.1 is the Courier company and other appellants are its employees. Appellants had dispatched the bank drafts to the addresses given by respondent no.1. However, the said bank drafts have not been received by the original opponent nos.9, 10 & 11. It is revealed that the bank drafts were encashed by the employees of the appellant company. No doubt, respondent no.1 had filed a criminal case and an amount of Rs.3,23,798/- has been recovered and the complaint before the District Consumer Forum was for recovery of remaining amount. It is contended by the respondent no.1 that the appellants are service provider and it was the duty of the appellant company to deliver the articles to its original addressee. As the articles have not been delivered, it is a deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
Ld.counsel Mr.U.B.Wavikar contended that the articles handed over to the appellants contained bank drafts. However, respondent no.1 has not disclosed the same to the appellants at the time of handing over the articles. It was the responsibility of respondent no.1 to disclose the particulars of the articles. Had respondent no.1 disclosed the articles, appellants could have suggested him to insure the same. Ld.Advocate has produced the terms and conditions of the Courier service wherein it is specifically mentioned that customers are therefore specifically advised to purchase insurance cover to ensure that their interest is fully protected in all events.
Further, he has drawn our attention to the judgement of National Commission in the case of Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt.Ltd. v/s. Mr.S. Suresh reported in 1(1994) CPJ 52 (NC), wherein National Commission has held that if the documents which were sent were of great value, consignee ought to have insured them. No such steps were taken nor was their value even disclosed in the consignment note. Hence National Commission had allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal facts and circumstances of the aforesaid authority are identical. The order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not supported by the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal provisions. Hence we pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal is allowed.
2. Impugned order under challenge is quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(Dhanraj Khamatkar) (S.B.Mhase) Member President Ms.