JAI HIND ROADWAYS vs H.NARENDRA JAIN

THIS appeal, by the Opp. Party, is directed against the order dated 13-8-1993, passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 774/92, directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,058/- with interest thereon.

IT is the case of the complainant that one Surendra Salecha booked a consignment with the Opp. Party carrier at Bombay for being delivered to the complainant in Bangalore, on 24.10.1989. The said consignment arrived in Bangalore on 31.10.1989. The complainant went to the Opp. Party at Bangalore, on 18-1-1990 to take delivery of the said consignment, the O.P. collected charges of Rs. 41/-and storage charges of Rs. 15/- in all Rs. 58/- from the complainant under Ex. C-1 and later told the complainant that the said consignment which was sent to the godown was found missing there and so asked the complainant to visit them again. IT is the further case of the complainant that he visited the Opp. Party thereafter on a number of occasions, but the Opp. Party did not deliver the consignment. The complainant wrote a registered letter on 24-9-1990 to the Bombay Office and subsequently the officer of the Opp. Party -one Mr. Chandu Bhai, offered a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant to settle the claim as the consignment was not traceable. The complainant was not thereafter paid even that money offered. The complainant on the basis of these averments sought the value of the contents of the consignment, that is, utensils in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation.

The opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact of receipt of a consignment from Bombay in the name of the complainant on 31.10.1989. It also admitted the fact of having collected freight and storage charges from the complainant on 18.1.1990 as per Ex. C-1. It further averred that the complainant was asked to visit them to collect the consignment some time after 18.1.1990 and as the complainant came to collect only in the month of Sept. 1990 and so the consignment was disposed off as an un-claimed article and so it disclaimed its liability.

DURING enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit and got Ex. C-l marked in evidence. The opposite party did not take part in proceedings after it sent its version by post. The copy of the terms and conditions produced by the Opp. Party came to be marked as Ex. R-l. The District Forum, considering this material placed on record by the parties, held that there was deficiency in service rendered by the Opp. Party and in that view directed the Opp. Party to pay the value of the articles in consignment with interest thereon to the complainant.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The dispatch of a consignment containing house-hold articles from Bombay to Bangalore to be delivered to the complainant at Bangalore are admitted. The Opp. Party has also admitted that the consignment was received in Bangalore on 31.10.1989. It also admitted that it collected a sum of Rs. 58/- towards freight and storage charges from the complainant on 18.1.1990 under Ex. C-l. The Opp. Party has averred that the consignment was disposed off as an unclaimed property as the complainant did not visit the Opp. Party to collect the consignment after 18.1.1990 as directed.

THE Opposite Party has not placed any material on record to show as to how the said consignment was disposed off.

THE Opposite Party has produced a copy of the terms and conditions, as per Ex. R- 1, and condition No. 10, reads as under: "10. THE Company shall have the right to dispose of perishables lying undelivered after 48 hours of arrival without any notice and other goods after 30 days of arrival after due notice in writing to the consignor or holder interested and the claimant shall be entitled to the proceeds less freight, demurrage and other charges as applicable."

The Opposite Party has not placed any material on record to show that any notice in writing was sent to the complainant before the said consignment came to be disposed off.

The Opposite Party has also not placed any material to show as to how, either by public auction or otherwise the said consignment was disposed off. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is clear that services rendered by the Opposite Party were deficient in nature and it was a clear negligent act on the part of the Opposite Party.

THE complainant has averred in the complaint and has also given his affidavit to show that the consignment contained stainless steel utensils valued at Rs. 5,000/-. THE complainant has even stated that one Mr. Chandu Bhai, an official of the Opposite Party-company had offered a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to settle the claim. The District Forum, having this material on record held that the complainant was entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, the value of stainless steel utensils contained in the said consignment and directed the Opposite Party-the appellant to pay the said sum with interest thereon.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the District Fourm. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The Opposite Party-the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 250/-(Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) to the complainant-respondent towards costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. ______________