Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
M/s. Tridev Express Cargo —Petitioner
versus
Ipsita Saha —Respondent
Revision Petition No.72 of 2020
Decided on 25.2.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Adnan Ahmed, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Service provider is liable to pay damages for uninsured consignment if deficiency is proved.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d) and 21 – Booking of uninsured consignment – Carrying of consignment to different parts of the country by Railways – Respondent hired the services of the Appellant on payment of due charges – No record to prove that the claim made by the Respondent was exaggerated one – District Forum directed to return undelivered bundle or cost of it with compensation of Rs.10,000 – Jurisdiction of National Commission is very limited – Held that, Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission.
[Paras 8, 9, 11 and 13]
Result: Revision dismissed
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member—Respondent/Complainant was carrying on cloth business under the name of Bhagwati Boutique. She engaged the services of the Petitioner/Opposite Party for carrying her consignment to different parts of the country. The Complainant booked a consignment containing seven bundles of cloth from Kolkata to Bangalore through the Petitioner on 06.12.2017. Out of the seven bundles of cloth that she booked, the Complainant received six bundles. Complainant sent letters dated 15.12.2017 and 19.12.2017 to the Petitioner requesting delivery of the undelivered bundle, but in vain. Thereafter, she filed a complaint case before the District Forum with the following prayer: -
“a. To direct to return one undelivered bundle booked under consignment Note No.1508758 dated 06.12.2017 to your complainant otherwise to pay Rs.1,25,000/- towards cost of the goods contained in the bundle in para 4 of the plaint.
b. To direct to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
c. To direct to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.
To pass such order or orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper.”
2. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing written statement that the Complainant was not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, the Respondent/Complainant had booked uninsured consignment and had not disclosed the value of goods. The liability of consigner, in a case of uninsured consignment, was limited. There was no deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and, therefore, the complaint case be dismissed with cost.
3. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint case and ordered as follows: -
“That the Complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only.
OPs are directed to return one undelivered bundle booked against consignment No.1508758 dated 6.12.2017 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, in default, the OPs shall have to pay Rs.1,25,000/- towards cost of the goods contained in the undelivered bundle to the complainant within the stipulated period.
OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony within the stipulated period.”
4. Against the order of the District Forum, an Appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing both the parties concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the Appellant to the Respondent/Complainant. Against the order of the State Commission, Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party. The present Revision Petition has been filed against these concurrent findings of the Fora below.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. The Complainant booked a consignment containing seven bundles of cloth from Kolkata to Bangalore through the Petitioner on 06.12.2017. Out of the seven bundles of cloth, the Complainant received six bundles. Complainant sent letters dated 15.12.2017 and 19.12.2017 to the Petitioner requesting delivery of the undelivered bundle, but there was no response from the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that both the Fora below have wrongly treated a commercial transaction as a consumer dispute and had not appreciated the limited liability of the consigner and failed to ascertain the actual value of the lost article.
6. The Complainant was carrying on boutique business for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. She booked the consignment and received the same herself.
7. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines the expression “Consumer.” It reads thus: -
“(d) “consumer” means any person who,—
(i) b
