SRUSHTI APPARELS PVT. LTD. vs BLUE DART EXPRESS PVT. LTD.

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant is an exporter of garments. It sent a parcel containing samples of 6 ready-made garments to Societte Grilloniiaise De Cuirs & Peaux, Route De Valreas, Grillon in France through the opposite party, Courier, on 12.5.92. THE parcel was expected to reach the destination in about 4 days. On 27.5.92 when the representative of the complainant went to France to discuss the matter, he found that the consignment had not been received by the intending purchaser. He has therefore returned empty handed without concluding the business deal. THE complainant wrote to the Opposite Party about the non-delivery and there was no response. Till this date the consignment has not been delivered at the destination. THE complainant has therefore come forward with this claim of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of business and Rs. 75,000/- for expenses incurred. The opposite party contends that this claim has no jurisdiction and the complainant has to approach the ordinary Civil Court. It has also challenged the constitutional validity of the Act. It is admitted on merits that a parcel containing samples of ready-made garments was delivered to the opposite party to be transported and delivered in France. It is also not denied that the consignment has not been delivered at the destination. But it is denied that there was any negligence or indifference. The allegation that the complainant lost business to the value of Rs. 1,50,000/- or incurred expenses of Rs. 75,000/- is denied. It is further pointed to U.S. Dollars 9.07 per pound.

Exhibits Al to A6 and B1 and B2 are marked. Proof affidavits are filed.

THE complainant has sent through the opposite party a consignment of sample garments on 12.5.92 to be transported to and delivered at Grillons in France to M/s. Societte Grillonnaise De Cuirs & Peaux, Route De Valreas, Exhibit A2 is the Cash Memo for payment of Rs. 995/- as the charge there for. Admittedly the consignment has not been delivered at the destination. Ipso facto there is gross deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite party in its failure to transport and deliver the consignment. THE only question which therefore arises for consideration is the quantum of compensation. The complainant has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of business, and Rs. 75,000/- for expenses incurred in that its representative went to France to clinch the business deal, but had to return in vain, as samples had not been delivered. But no records are filed to substantiate both these contentions. We think it will be just and proper to award compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-.

THE contention put forward in the written statement that the complainant has to file a Civil Suit and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum has to be mentioned only to be rejected. THE complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and he has hired the services of the opposite party for transporting his consignment from Madras to France. THE opposite party has defaulted to do the same and there has been gross deficiency of service. THE complaint is therefore perfectly maintainable. In the result we direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 15,000/-as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Complaint allowed with costs.