Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ODISHA, CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO.132/2011
(From an order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the District Forum,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Consumer Complaint No. 100/2007)
1- Orissa Goods Carriage, Balasore,
Represented through its Branch Manager,
At-Januganj Golai,PO/PS/Dist- Balasore.
2- Branch Manager, Head Office,
Orissa Goods Carriage, Cuttack Branch,
At-Professor Pada, PS/PS/Dist-Cuttack.
3- Orissa Goods Carriage, Baripada Branch,
At-Ambika Sahi,PO/PS- Baripada,
Dist-Mayurbhanj.
….Appellants
-Vrs.-
1- Smritikana Das @ Pyne
W/o.Late Sunil Kumar Pyne
Proprietor Pyne & Pyne
At- Lalbazar, Near M.P.K.Girls High School,
PO/PS- Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj.
-2-
2- Manager, Blow Plast Ltd., Cuttack.
Madhusudan Avenue, Biju pattnaik Chowk,
At/PO/Dist-Cuttack.
…
Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellants:- Sri Suvendu Ku, Ray and Sri Siva Prasad
Swain,
Counsel for the Respondents- Sri Anjan Kumar Biswal, Sri P.K.Rout,Sri
D.R.Das,
Date of Hearing- 30.08.2022
Date of Order- 02.09.2022
O R D E R
Sri P.K.Prusty, Member
The case of the complainant is that the complainant as the proprietor of
“pyne& Pyne” dealing with VIP Brand of luggage. The complainant purchased some
VIP Suitcases & got the said 34 catoons containing VIP suitcases worth Rs.1,66,806/-
vide invoice – cum delivery challan No. 67, dt. 13-04-2007 and consignment No.
1459, Dt. 14-04-2007 transported through O.P No.2/Appellant, ( Orissa Goods
Carriage, cuttack )
-3-
to its destination at Baripada via O.P No.3 ( Orissa Goods Carriage ,
Baripada ). The said consignment could not be delivered at its destination within a
reasonable period and all querries before O.Ps about the fate of the consignment
went in vain. The complainant served notice u/s 10 of the Carrier Act 1865 on O.P
No.1,2 & 3 on 04-10-2007 demanding for delivery of its consignment within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the notice or to refund the value of consignment of Rs.
1,66,806/- along with 18 % interest. The O.P No.1 and 2 received the legal notice
but not responded within the due time, as such complaint petition has been filed
alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
The O.P No.1 to 3 filed their written version stating that the complainant
is not a consumer and has filed the frivolous petition to harass
the O.Ps as such he may be punished U/s 26 of C.P.Act,1986. As per Rule 5 of
terms and conditions of the contract printed in consignment, the company is not
responsible for any loss or damage to consignment booked at owner's risk and The
complaint case is not maintainable in absence of notice U/s 10 of Carrier Act. As
per Rule 11 of terms and conditions of Contract, no suit can be filed against the
carrier if the claimant not snding
-4-
due notice stating full particulars of consignment booked and supported
with invoice and related documents within 30 days of its booking and there is
also violation of Rule 17 of terms and conditions of the contract.
After hearing both the parties learned forum below passed the impugned
order directing the O.P No.1 to 3 to deliver the goods(consignment) as per the
invoice-cum delivery challan or to refund Rs.1,66,806/- alongwith interest @12%
p.a from the date of boking i.e. 14.4.2007 till payment and further directed to pay
Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for loss of income, harassment and mental
agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from thedate of
receipt of the order failing which an interest @ 18% would be charged till date of
payment.
Challenging the impugned order passed by learned forum
below, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel of appellant
submitted that in the present case even though Respondent No.1( after reaching the
said consignment at Baripada) received all goods related to the consignment from
the appellant transporter by endorsing the register
-5-
m
