Vrl Logistics Ltd. vs Konark Textile Proprietor Firm

REVISION petition no. 528 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ( ''the State Commission '') in First Appeal no. 71 of 2012.

THE brief facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the petitioner is a transport company and is engaged in transporting goods to various destinations and in lieu of this service, the petitioner company charges transportation fare from its customers. The respondent is a textile manufacturer and apart from selling its textile in local markets, the respondent also sells the same to other states. In the course of business, the respondent booked two Bales of cotton worth Rs.30,000/ - with the Petitioner for being transported to the consignee M/s Vaibhav Apparels, Kompeli, Hyderabad through Bhilwara Branch of the petitioner company on 17.03.2010 through a forwarding note dated 16.03.2010 and the said consignment (cloth) was booked by the petitioner company through its bill (Builty) no. 449573582 dated 17.03.2010 and for which petitioner company fixed sum of Rs.550/ - i.e., Rs.525/ - as transportation fare and Rs.25/ - as miscellaneous expenses and which was to be recovered from the consignee after delivery of the consignment to him. It was assured by the petitioner company that the goods of the respondent will reach its destination, i.e., Kompeli, Hyderabad within 4 -5 days. In this manner, respondent availed the services of the petitioner company and thus respondent is a consumer of petitioner - company.

WHEN the goods of the respondent did not reach its destination within the stipulated period, the respondent repeatedly requested the petitioner - company to make sure that the goods reach its destination. Ultimately when nothing fruitful emerged, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner - company through his counsel on 03.03.2011 and this notice was duly served upon the petitioner - company on 07.03.2011.

PETITIONER - company sent its reply to the above notice on 18.03.2011 and the respondent came to know for the first time that the goods booked by respondent instead of being delivered at its destination, were auctioned by the petitioner on 20.11.2010 for a paltry sum of Rs.17,000/ - without any intimation to the respondent. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the petitioner - company was patently erroneous and amounts to deficiency in service. It was therefore, prayed that the complaint of the respondent be allowed and the petitioner be directed to: (a) Pay to the respondent Rs.30,000/ - towards cost of the goods/ cloth and Rs.5,000/ - on account of mental agony suffered by the respondent and Rs.3,000/ - towards costs and damages, i.e., a total sum of Rs.38,000/ -.

(b) Costs of the complaint along with fee of the Advocate be also paid to the respondent by petitioner - company.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon ''ble Court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the respondent.

PETITIONER / opposite party while admitting that the respondent had booked the goods for being transported to the consignee M/s Vaibhav Apparels Kompeli, Hyderabad, through Bhilwara Branch of the petitioner - company through bill (Builty) no. 449573582 dated 17.03.2010 stated that the complaint was completely wrong and denied. The goods booked by the respondent had reached its destination at Hyderabad within the prescribed period. The consignee M/s Vaibhav Apparels, Kompeli, Hyderabad, was required to obtain delivery of the goods by producing original bill. But even after expiry of five months period no one came to collect the goods nor were the goods booked by the respondent re -booked. Although petitioner informed the respondent repeatedly about this. Petitioner also informed the respondent many times that if no one takes the delivery of the goods, then the same will be auctioned for recovery of damages. But nothing was done by the respondent. The conditions were duly printed on the back of the bill also and the respondent had duly accepted the said conditions when he had booked his goods with the petitioner - company. No information was ever sought by the respondent from the petitioner on any date. Whereas the petitioner informed the respondent many times. Not only this, no correspondence in connection with the above goods was ever made by the respondent and thereafter he sent notice through his advocate on 03.03.2011, i.e., after about one year of the booking of goods. This amply showed the lackadaisical attitude of the respondent. The said notice was sent with mala fide intention. Respondent very well knew that the consignee M/s Vaibhav Apparels, Hyderabad had not taken the delivery of the goods and therefore, goods should be re -booked again. But respondent did not take any action.

FURTHER since no one came to take the delivery of the goods at Hyderabad in spite of expiry of five months period from the date of booking, i.e., 17.03.2010 nor the respondent took any steps to rebook the goods at Bhilwara the petitioner sent the undelivered goods to its un -delivery property section at Hubli on 03.08.2010. The petitioner wrote two letters to the respondent on 27.05.2010 and 27.06.2010 requesting the respondent to pay transportation charges and demurrages etc., and get the goods rebooked again. But the respondent did not give any reply to any of the above said two letters nor took any steps to take back the delivery of the goods. Consequently, petitioner sent a notice of auction to respondent on 11.08.2010 demanding payment of Rs.4014/ - on account of fare, demurrage and other charges. But in spite of that no action was taken by the respondent upto 20.11.2010. Thereafter, the goods were auctioned on 20.11.2010 for Rs.17,000/ - by following the procedure prescribed in the law. There was no mala fide in doing so by the petitioner and in fact the said goods were auctioned at the maximum price. It is submitted that the goods had not been sold at that time, the same would have become valueless due to passage of time and it would have been of no use of any one. In this manner the goods were rightly auctioned by petitioner - company for a valuable consideration and by resorting to procedure prescribed in the law. It is submitted that petitioner was always ready and willing to pay Rs.11,096/ - out of the above auctioned price after deducting its expenses. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara, Rajasthan ( ''the District Forum '') vide its order dated 12.12.2011 while dismissing the complaint held that ''''there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent - transport company. If a consignee does not collect the goods transported to him through a transport company, then consignor should rebook his goods and should also pay transport charges and other expenses to transport company. But the complainant neither got the undelivered goods rebooked nor paid any transport charges, demurrage or any other charges to the transport - company. In this manner, there is no deficiency on the part of respondent - transport company. Consequently, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. ''''

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the respondent complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and ''''directed the respondent to pay to the appellant - company a sum of Rs.30,000/ - on account of cost of the bail of cottons and also pay Rs.10,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and costs of the complaint. Respondent is granted 30 days time to comply with this order. If respondent fails to comply with this order within 30 days period, then he will pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.30,000/ - upto the date of its actual payment by him. ''''

WHILE the allowing the appeal, the State Commission observed as under: ''''It has been stated by the respondent in his reply that the undelivered goods were sent by him to his un -delivery property section at Hubli on 03.08.2010 and the goods remained lying undelivered in the transport office from 17.03.2010 to 03.08.2010. Thereafter goods were sent to the undelivery property section at Hubli on 03.08.2010. Whereas respondent has stated that he had written letters to the complainant on 27.05.2010 and 27.06.2010 demanding complainant to pay transportation charges, demurrage etc., and also get the goods rebooked. But this averment of respondent is false. Because when the goods had been sent to the undelivery property section at Hubli on 03.08.2010, then how and on what basis respondent could have written letters to the complainant on 27.05.2010 and 27.06.2010. Besides above, the goods were sent on 03.08.2010 and were auctioned on 11.08.2010. This amply shows that the goods were auctioned within a period of 8 days only and letter was ever written by the undelivery property section, Hubli of the respondent. Respondent on the one hand did not transport the goods at its destination on time and on the other hand he auctioned the goods without informing the complainant. In this manner, respondent is guilty of deficiency in service. Besides above, it is also apparent from perusal of the order of the District Forum that respondent has admitted in his reply that he was and is always ready to pay the sum of Rs.11,096/ - to the complainant. But the District Forum has completely ignored this aspect and as such the impugned order of District Forum is contrary to facts and is therefore, set aside ''''.

Hence, the present revision petition.

THE main grounds for the revision petition are that: * The State Commission seriously erred in holding that the goods were auctioned on 11.08.2010 which is wrong and incorrect and the correct date of auction was 20.11.2010.

* The State Commission failed to see that the undelivered consignment in the present case was sent to the un -delivery property section at Hubli on 03.08.2010. The aforesaid office issued auction notice on 11.08.2010 asking the complainant - respondent to deposit the charges and collect the consignment. However, where there was no response the petitioner was constrained to dispose of the goods by way of auction in accordance with law which was done on 20.11.2010.

* The State Commission failed to see that the complainant having booked the consignment on 17.03.2010 had kept quiet for almost one year and for the first time he got issued legal notice only on 03.03.2011. The complainant has not acted as a ordinary prudent man who would definitely see that the consignment sent by him would reach the destination and consignee within reasonable time. In the present case even as per the say of the complainant the complainant had kept quiet for almost one year which itself shows that he was not keen to get the consignment delivered to the consignee or get backs the goods. The complainant has to be blamed for its carelessness as rightly observed by the District Forum.

* The State Commission failed to see that the petitioner was always ready and willing to pay the amount of Rs.11,096/ - recovered on auction of the consignment after deducting its dues. However, this admission on the part of the petitioner does not in any help the case of the respondent -complainant.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person and have carefully gone through the records of the case. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had booked two bales of cotton with the petitioner company for being transported to consignee M/s Vaibhav Apparels, Kompeli, Hyderabad vide forwarding note dated 16.03.2010. The transportation fare and miscellaneous expenses were to be recovered from the consignee after the delivery of the consignment to him. The counsel for the petitioner states that the goods of the complainant had been reached at its destination within the time. The respondent could not give any information regarding the attempts made with the consignee - M/s Vaibhav Apparels, Kompeli, Hyderabad to collect the consignment. He has also not mentioned in his complaint or during the arguments as to when he came to know that the goods had not been delivered as also regarding the attempts made by him with the consignee to get the goods collected by making necessary payment. He could not also not bring on record the attempts made by him to get the goods delivered either through contacting the consignee or the petitioner. On the other hand the counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the letters dated 27.05.2010 and 27.06.2010 regarding non -delivery intimation information to the respondent which state that the goods under the said way bill are still lying in the godown attracting demurrage charges. Respondent was requested to arrange for delivery of the goods by the consignee or advise the petitioner for re -booking the same by surrendering the original consignee ''s copy of the Way Bill. The respondent did not deny the receipts of those letters nor did he confirm what action he had taken thereon. He also did not deny the receipt of the auction notice dated 12.08.2010 from the petitioner.

WE also note that from the order of the State Commission as given in paragraph 11 of this order has based its decision on facts which are incorrect. The sequence of events has been erroneously recorded. As per the written statement of the petitioner and from the records on the file the petitioner had written to the respondent vide letters dated 27.05.2010 and 27.06.2010. As the petitioner received no reply, as mentioned in his letters, the goods were sent to demurrage collection point (unclaimed property section) at Varur, Hubli on 03.08.2010), the goods were auctioned thereafter on 20.11.2010. Auction notice had been given to the respondent on 12.08.2010 almost three months before the auction.

FROM the above -mentioned circumstances, it is quite evident that the respondent/ complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner - transport company. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.