P.ORR And SONS(P)LTD vs BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD

THE 1st complainant has sent 272 watches in 4 cartons through the opposite party to their consignee at Calcutta from Madras. According to the 1st complainant, there was delay in delivery and there was short delivery by 214 watches. THE value of the said watches is Rs. 5,58,324.70 P. THE 1st complainant made a claim for this amount with the opposite party, but the opposite party repudiated the claim. THE 1st complainant had earlier insured the said watches with the 2nd complainant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. On a claim made with the 2nd complainant, they paid the said sum of Rs. 5,58,324.70 P. and obtained a subrogation letter from the 1st complainant. THE 2nd complainant also made a claim for the said sum with the opposite party, but that also was not respected. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party contend that there was some delay but that was due to the reason that originally the carton was to be sent through air, but later it was sent through surface transport and that was due to unforeseen circumstances and hence there was no fault or delay on their part. THEn, regarding the allegation of short delivery, it is contended that they delivered the entire consignment of four cartons to the consignee and they were not informed then and there about any short delivery and therefore the claim of short delivery is false. Hence the opposite party are not liable to pay any amount to any of the complainants. The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so, what relief can be granted to the complainants.

Even though in the complaint it was alleged that there was delay in delivery of the cartons, finally the complainants have claimed only the value of shortage of goods and they have not claimed any amount for the alleged delay. Therefore we need not consider about any deficiency in service in the delay in delivery. We have to consider whether there was deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants in not delivering the entire goods. The case of the complainants is that when the cartons were delivered on 22.4.1996 at the opposite party''s office at Calcutta they were accepted without any demur and only subsequently they had alleged short delivery but that short delivery is not proved. Now the case of the complainants is that on 22.4.1996 when delivery was made by the office of the opposite party, all the partners of the consignee were out and after they came back they found out the shortage and they immediately informed the 1st complainant. So admittedly at the time of delivery it was not complained that there was shortage but only subsequently after the opposite party left the office they were informed that there was shortage. In this connection, Ex. A-4 dated 30.4.1996 letter written by the opposite party to the complainants is relevant. A reading of it shows that it was only through phone the 1st complainant had told the opposite party about the alleged short delivery and to that the opposite party had written this letter. Therein it is clearly stated that after hearing from the 1st complainant a representative of the opposite party went to the office of the consignee and there, after checking, they retrieved 25 watches more than the number of watches alleged to have been delivered. This clearly shows that some mischief had been played in the office of the consignee and it may be in collusion with the consignee. Therefore it cannot be held that the opposite party are liable for any short delivery. Further, it may be noted that Ex. A-3 consignment note reads that the opposite party would be liable to an extent of Rs. 1,000/- or the damages suffered whichever is lower. Whatever it may be, as we have held above, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved.

IN this view of the matter, the complaint has to be dismissed. We order accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.