Back
2009(4) CPR 56 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Gati Limited –Petitioner
versus
Medisearch Pharmaceuticals Ltd. –Respondent
Revision Petition No.2275 of 2005
Decided on 4-8-2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Uphadhyay and Mr. D. Karunakaran, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-delivery of urgent consignment containing life saving drugs on time amounts to deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21 (b)—Complainant booked a consignment of drugs through petitioner—Petitioner failed to deliver goods on appointed date though goods were consigned with warning that order was an urgent consignment containing life saving drugs and had reach its destination on appointed day—Complainant’s case that due to deficiency in service committed by petitioner, respondent’s business was affected in State of Bihar—Complaint—Allowed by District Forum—Appeal—Dismissed by State Commission—Revision petition there against—Case of petitioner that due to detention of goods by Sales Tax Authorities, delivery could not be made in time—Petitioner informed respondent about detention of goods after a delay of 15 days—Had the petitioner informed respondent immediately about detention of goods, then respondent would have arranged to get consignment released immediately—There was certainly a deficiency on part of petitioner is not informing respondent about detention of goods for 15 days—Damages awarded by petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,62,483/- being on higher side reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- —Again interest awarded @ 24% being highly exaggerated reduced to 15%—Revision petition disposed of. (Paras 9, 14 to 18)
Ashok Bhan, President—Petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto-date) against the Order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) passed in Appeal No.570 of 2000 on 25.04.2005 whereunder the State Commission has upheld the Order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal with cost of Rs. 250/-.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:—
Complainant’s case is that he had booked a consignment of drugs worth Rs. 2,37,517/- on 1.10.1996 through the petitioner who promised to deliver the goods at the destination at Patna on 07.10.1996. Petitioner failed to deliver the goods on the appointed date though the goods were consigned with the warning that the order is an urgent consignment containing life saving drugs and has to reach its destination on the appointed day. Petitioner accepted the goods with an assurance that there would be no delay. By a letter dated 17.10.1996, complainant was informed by the petitioner that the goods had been detained at the Poonamallee Check Post and the goods will be released only after obtaining release order. Complainant took immediate action and got the release order and delivered the goods to the petitioner for delivery at their destination on 18.10.1996. In spite of several reminders over fax and telephone, the petitioner did not care to handover the goods to the consignee. As the consignment containing life saving medicines did not reach its destination, the Doctors at Ranchi started prescribing medicines from other companies resulting in considerable loss to the respondent. It was alleged that because of the deficiency in service committed by the petitioner, respondent’s business was affected in the State of Bihar which resulted in causing mental agony and tension to the respondent. Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum demanding Rs.3.3 lakhs by way of damages.
3. Petitioner on being noticed filed the Written Statement. It was admitted that the consignment had been booked through the petitioner. It was averred that consignment was detained by the check post authorities on 02.10.1996 for want of appropriate documents for transportation of goods from Madras to Bihar. That subsequent to the release order obtained on 17.10.1996, no fresh agreement was entered into between the parties regarding delivery of goods. That the goods reached the destination on 24.11.1996. Instead of taking the delivery of the goods, the respondent issued a legal notice-Ex.A5. That the petitioner did not commit any deficiency in service and, therefore, it was not liable to pay for any loss or damage, which may have been caused to the respondent. Since respondent refused to take the delivery of the goods, he was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him. That the petitioner is prepared to handover the consignment even now at the godown in Chennai. That the complaint was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act.
4. Petitioner, in its evidence, has produced Exhibits A-1 to A14.
5. The grievance of the complainant respondent is that the petitioner failed to deliver the consignment of drugs booked at Madras on 01.10.1996 on or before the date of delivery, i.e., 07.10.1996 and, thus, caused financial loss and mental agony. For the deficiency in service, he was entitled to be compensated for the value of medicine along with a damage of Rs.3 lakhs. The case of the respondent is that the delay was due to detention of goods by the Sales Tax Authorities and after release of consignment, the consignee refused to take the delivery and, therefore, they are not liable to the respondent for any loss.
6. District Forum, after taking into
