G. Kalpana Vs. Vrl Logistics Ltd. Rajahmundry Rep. by Its Manager and Another - Court Judgment

ORAL ORDER: (Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

1) Appellant is un-successful complainant.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she booked a consignment of clothes to Chinnamma Talli Cloth Stores, Mahagaon through respondent transport company from Rajahmundry to Narasannapeta on 19.12.2007 at its Rajahmundry office. As per the rules unless original receipt was produced the respondent transport company should not deliver the goods to the consignee. As the disputes arose between them, she did not send the original receipt to the consignee and also requested the respondent to re-book the consignment to her agreeing to bear the necessary charges for re-booking by her letter dt. 24.4.2008. Instead of re-booking the consignment, in collusion with consignee, the respondent delivered the consignment. Alleging it amounts to deficiency in service, she filed the complaint claiming Rs. 52,387/- towards value of the consignment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

3) The respondent transport company filed written version as well as additional written version resisting the case. It alleged that the matter had to be decided after taking elaborate evidence not amenable for summary adjudication. It alleged that consignment of cloths was booked on 19.12.2007 by Bhagya Laxmi Sainath Silks, Rajahmundry. She requested them to deliver the consignment to Chinnamma Talli Cloth Centre, Mabagam, Srikakulam. Accordingly it was delivered on the ground that it was urgent. It appears that there were disputes between the consignor and the consignee and that the complainant in collusion with the consignee filed this complaint. Even recently she has been booking and receiving several consignments evident from consignment receipts from 2.4.2010 to 2.6.2010. The complainant had received Rs. 24,800/- on 3.1.2008 and also another demand draft dt. 7.8.2008 from Chinnamma Talli Cloth Centre through R2. The complainant herself issued registered legal notice on 22.9.2008 admitting payment of Rs. 24,500/- on 3.1.2008. The said fact was suppressed. This shows collusion between them, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A4 marked while the respondents filed the affidavit of its Manager and got Exs. B1 to B10 marked.

5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that consignment was delivered to the consignee evidenced under Ex. B5. The complainant herself gave Ex. B9 legal notice to the consignee as well as respondent transport company claiming the amount, and that it being a commercial transaction, excluded from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently dismissed the complaint.

6) Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that she had informed the respondent not to deliver the consignment and ready to pay re-booking charges. The original receipt was not sent to the consignee in order to deliver the same. It was not for commercial purpose. The Dist. Forum failed to appreciate the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Madan Kumar Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Sultanpur reported in (2009) 9 SCC 79 and that the dispute attracts the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.

7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant, a proprietory concern supply clothes to retail dealers through respondent transport company. It is also not in dispute that the consignment of clothes that was booked on 19.12.2007 through respondent transport company was delivered to the consignee on 29.12.2007 evidenced under Ex. B5. The respondent alleges that it has become a usual practise to deliver it to the consignee and obtain acknowledgement on the consignment copy. It may be stated that the declared value of the consignment was Rs. 54,000/-. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 24,800/- was deposited through SBI on 3.1.2008 remaining balance of Rs. 29,500/- as against Rs. 54,000/- the respondent sent demand draft issued by SBH on 7.8.2008 vide letter dt. 7.8.2008 (Ex. B3). On 24.4.2008 the complainant under Ex. A2 requested the respondent to re-book the consignment, agreeing to pay the re-booking charges. This letter was four months after delivery of the consignment to the consignee.

9) The complainant alleges that without original consignment receipt, the respondent ought not to have delivered the consignment. They ought to have waited till the original consignment receipt was produced.

10) The respondent in order to prove that it was a practise for the driver to hand over the consignment to the consignee and obtain acknowledgement on the drivers consignment note filed Ex. B7 a series of consignment notes. The complainant did not dispute the said fact. That apart, the complainant herself issued registered lawyer notice on 22.9.2008 under Ex. B9 not only to consignee (No.1) but also to the respondent transport company (No. 2) demanding “No. 1 of your still having a due to a tune of Rs. 12,778.05 as per the account maintained by my client in its regular course of business as on 4.1.2008. So, No. 1 of you hereby demanded to pay the balance amount due as per accounts.”

11) For the reasons best known the complainant did not implead the consignee. Irrefutable evidence shows that the said consignment was received by the consignee and the said fact was not disputed by the complainant. Solely on the ground that original consignment receipt was not furnished at the time of delivery of the goods, and without producing it, it ought not to deliver, and dubbing it as deficiency in service, she filed the complaint.

12) It is a clear case where recovery of amount from the consignee was turned into a consumer dispute by filing a complaint against the transport company on the ground that despite non-delivery of original consignment receipt the consignment was delivered. In the light of Ex. B9 wherein the complainant has categorically claimed certain amounts from the consignee, and the complainant having fully known that consignment was already received by the consignee, the question of collecting the amount from the transport company will not arise. This claim is unholy and unsustainable.

13) In the light of above facts, we do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.

14) In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.