RAKESH NAHATA vs GATI CORPORATION LTD.

THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the order of dismissal passed by the Forum.

THE complainant sent one packet of computer articles valued Rs. 6,000/- ex Calcutta to Mumbai on 8.5.1999 through the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 for delivery to O.P. No. 3. THE date of delivery was fixed on 13.5.1999. THE complainant paid Rs. 277/- on account of freight, services tax to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, but they did not effect delivery of the articles even after the lapse of a long time. After several correspondence he was informed by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 that the said consignment was lying at their delivery branch at Mumbai for non-payment of octroi. Moreover, they demanded from him a sum of Rs. 2,872/- as freight charges etc. Further, they threatened to sell the consignment by public auction. Hence, the complainant approached the Forum. The case was contested by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 by filing written objection. According to them delivery of the consignment was taken by the O.P. on payment of octroi duty of Rs. 504/-. They claim that when the consignee was asked to take delivery of the articles on payment of octroi duty paid already by O.P. the consignee refused to take delivery of the same on payment of octroi charges. Thereafter, they informed both the consignor and the consignee demanding payment of freight charges and other charges incidental thereto. They also informed both the consignor and consignee that unless delivery of the goods is taken, the same would be brought back to their office at Bangalore and the same would be put on sale for recovery of their dues.

The point that fell for consideration before the Forum was whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The Forum noticed that the O.Ps. have produced papers to show that they had paid the octroi charges and got the release of the consignment in question. They informed the consignee about the payment of octroi charges by them and asked them to take delivery of the same from them, but there was no reply. The O.Ps. sent intimation to the complainant also but the consignment remained unclaimed. The O.Ps. claim that they have taken all reasonable steps which are required to be taken by a carrier of goods and as such they cannot be held responsible for non-delivery of the articles. It appears that the Forum has correctly noticed that there was no deficiency in service on their part. We are in agreement with the views taken by the Forum. The appeal is without any merit which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.