AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directing against the order dated 13th day of June, 1997 in O.P. No. 83/96 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, The Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.
THE appellants are the opposite parties while the respondent is the complainant. The necessary and requisite facts are required to be stated in brevity for understanding the crux of the issue involved for consideration in this action. We may accordingly do so.
The complainant availed of the services of the opposite parties-transport contractors for consideration in transporting 21 bags of Tea valued at Rs. 25,683.84, on "To pay basis" from Coonoor to Bikaner at Carriers Risk under Consignment Note dated 4.8.1995. The goods had been booked to one M/s. Kasturi Trading Company of Bikaner. The documents relating to the consignment had been sent through Bank with an intimation to the consignee to clear the documents and take delivery of the goods at Bikaner.
THE consignee M/s. Kasturi Trading Company did not appear to have cleared the documents from the Bank and took delivery of the consignment from the opposite parties. THE opposite parties, it appears, delivered the consignment without insisting on the production of the documents to be cleared from the Bank. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant/respondent would claim, is deficiency in service on their part.
ALLEGING the factors as above, the complainant/respondent knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties/appellants in pith and substances would contend that there is no deficiency in service on their part inasmuch as the transaction in question is not relatable to a consumer dispute in the sense of the complainant/respondent to be construed as a consumer qua opposite parties. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, ultimately recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and on the basis of finding so recorded directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 29,174/- with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 22.3.1996 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs of the complaint. The Forum below issued a direction that the award so passed should be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of its order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to institute proceedings against the opposite parties 1 and 2 as per the provisions of law for the recovery of the amount.
AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite parties resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. Murthi & Vasan.
ON service of process, the respondent/complainant entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. A.J. Jawad. When this matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/opposite parties namely, M/s. Murthi & Vasan were called absent and no representation is made on their behalf. The fact that the said learned Counsel were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, after hearing the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. A.J. Jawad representing the respondent/complainant and on perusal of the materials placed on record that exactly what we have done.
From the pith and substance of the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant and the perusal of the materials placed on record, the one and only point that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below is sustainable in law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
THERE is no pale of controversy that the complainant availed of the services of the opposite parties for consideration in transporting 21 bags of Tea from Coonoor to Bikaner to be delivered to the consignee there, on the production of the necessary and requisite documents. Yet another fact about which there is no dispute is that the Lorry Receipt, Consignment Note, etc. were not directly sent to the consignee but were sent through the Bank with intimation to the consignee for the clearance of the documents from the Bank on effecting payment and then take delivery of the goods from the opposite parties. The materials placed on record do point out in no uncertain terms that the consignee did not clear the documents from the Bank on effecting payment and the opposite parties as a matter of fact delivered the consignment to the consignee without insisting the clearance on the production of the documents sent through the Bank. As a consequence of such an act on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant sustained loss as respects not only the value of the goods but also loss incurred by way of his account having been debited by his banker in a sum of Rs. 3,490/- towards interest apart from his account being debited to the actual value of the goods namely, Rs. 25,684/- in effect, he sustained a loss of Rs. 25,684/- + Rs. 3,490/- totalling to Rs. 29,174/-. The Forum below recorded a finding that the act of the opposite parties in delivering the goods to the consignee without insisting the production of documents clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. That sort of a finding on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. We, therefore, confirm such a finding. Once such a finding is confirmed, it goes without saying that the opposite parties must have to bear brunt of the loss sustained by the complainant quantified in a sum of Rs. 29,174/- as already indicated.
THE Forum below also directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by way of compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant; the sum so awarded on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we rather feel, is reasonable not calling for interference. We also confirm such portion of the award. THE Forum below also granted costs in a sum of Rs. 500/- which, we rather feel, is also reasonable not calling for interference. We also confirm such portion of the award. As such the appeal is deserved to be dismissed. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.