Economic Transport Organisation vs VASAVI TRADING CO.

THESE two appeals arise out of one order passed by the District Forum, Madras-South in O.P. No. 740/ 95. Hence both me appeals can be heard and disposed of in one order here.

THE complainant booked goods worth Rs. 1,19,400/- through the opposite party M/s. Economic Transport Organisation on 1.6.1994 to be delivered to M/s. Panacea Pharmaceuticals, Industrial Estate, Berhampur, Orissa under door delivery condition. According to the complainant he did not receive the bill amount from the consignee and therefore he wrote two letters on 20.3.1995 and 27.3.1995 to the opposite party. A reminder was also sent on 27.4.1995. Only to that reminder the opposite party sent a reply dated 16.5.1995 stating that they did not know whether the consignment was held up for want of the opposite party''s road permit. THE complainant again wrote a letter on 27.5.1995 for which there was no reply. THEn the complainant wrote another letter on 9.6.1995 requesting the opposite party to return the goods and to that letter the opposite party replied that the consignment was held up at its Berhampur Office and requested the complainant to advise the consignee to approach that office and to pay the freight charges and talu- delivery of the goods. THErefore the complainant caused a legal notice on 20.6.1995 claiming that cost of the consignment and also compensation. To that the opposite party sent a reply raising untenable grounds. On these grounds, alleging deficiency in service on the part of me opposite party the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to pay the value of the goods viz., Rs. 1,19,400/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.6.1994 till realisation and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss of reputation and mental agony. The opposite party contended that the goods had reached Berhampur on 21.6.1994 itself and as such there was no delay in transporting the goods. The consignee was informed about it but the consignee told them that he had not ordered for any goods with the complainant and the goods in question had been banned in Orissa and therefore he was not taking delivery of the goods. The goods were lying in the opposite party''s godown for one year without payment of any freight charges as well as demurrage charges. The complainant instead of taking back the goods had come with this complaint. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence has accepted the case of the complainant that there was long delay in transporting the goods and thus the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, but however as regards the reliefs, the goods are still in tact with the opposite party and therefore the complainant can take back the goods. It further held. that the opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly it ordered the opposite party to send back the consignment at their cost and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5.000/- as compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.

AGAINST this order the opposite party has filed A.P. No. 192/97 pleading that the order of the District Forum against them is not sustainable, and the complainant has filed A.P. No. 429/97 contending that the District Forum should have ordered payment of cost of the consignment and not the return of the consignment. After hearing both sides and on going through the relevant records, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum is absolutely correct and there is nothing that warrants interference with it either in the appeal filed by the opposite party or in the appeal filed by the complainant. As regards the appeal of the opposite party, after having sent the goods on 1.6.1994 through the opposite party the complainant has sent two letters dated 20.3.1995 and also 27.3.1995. To these two letters there was no reply from them. Again the complainant sent a reminder on 27.4.1995 and to that letter the opposite party has sent a reply on 16.5.1995 stating that they were not aware whether the goods have reached the destination or not. The complainant sent another notice on 9.6.1995 and only to that letter the opposite party has sent a reply stating that the consignment had already arrived at Berhampur on 21.6.1994 itself but the consignee was not prepared to take delivery of the goods stating that they had not ordered for the goods and the goods had been banned in Orissa. If really the consignment had reached the destination on 21.6.1994 as stated by the opposite party they would have replied to the complainant''s letter dated 20.3.1995 and 27.3.1995 and they would have sent a proper reply to his letter, dated 16.5.1995. As regards their contention that the consignee was not prepared to take delivery of the goods, apart from the opposite party themselves saying so, there is no reliable evidence. Even to prove that the goods had been banned in Orissa, they have not shown any records. Therefore the contention of the opposite party that the consignee refused to take delivery of the goods is unacceptable. From these facts it is absolutely clear, as rightly held by the District Forum, that the consignment had not reached Berhampur for a long time i.e., over a year and it had not reached Berhampur on 21.6.1994 as contended by the opposite party. As such there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not delivering the goods even after a long delay of more than one year which certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Inour view, rightly the District Forum has ordered return of the goods. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant that the goods are of no use now because of long lapse of time and therefore there is no point in getting back the goods and hence the District Forum ought to have ordered payment of the value of the goods. But to say that the goods will be of no use now, there is no evidence. What is more, in the letter dated 9.6.1995 sent by the complainant they themselves have asked the opposite party to return the goods. Therefore there is no merit in the present contention that the goods would be of no use to them. Then as regards the order of award for Rs. 5,000/- as compensation, considering the inordinate delay, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is quite proper. Thus we find no merit in either of the appeals. Accordingly they are dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs in both the appeals. Appeals dismissed. ______________