w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha v/s Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode

    Appeal No. 421 of 2016
    Decided On, 03 January 2020
    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: Mridul John Mathew, N.G. Mahesh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Indusekharan Thampy, Advocate.

Judgment Text

A. Beena Kumari, Member

The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 623/2014 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode and the respondent is the complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Complainant is the Managing Partner of a Garment Manufacturing and Trading Company in the name and style M/s. Wetex Garments. They are supplying churidar garments all over the state of Kerala. Their distributors are taking orders from the shops after showing the samples and pass the orders to their office. As per the orders, they themselves are designing and manufacturing the garments and sending the same to the shops or to their distributors through APS Parcel Services. The complainant alleged that in many occasions the consignments sent through APS believing their words that they will deliver the same within two days got inordinately delayed and thereby the customers suffered heavy loss waiting for their materials and many time they have returned the same with abuses. Due to such performance of the opposite parties, the complainant had lost many of their customers, business, goodwill and reputation resulting heavy financial loss. Due to the delay in supplying materials, many shops at Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam were rejected their materials. On 01.09.2014 Mr. Ajit Kumar, one of their distributors, had sent some consignment which are rejected by the concerned shops at Trivandrum and Kollam Districts costing Rs.67,145/- through APS from their Angal branch to Mukam Branch as per bill No, LR No. T5AA05601108. But even after 7 days the consignments were not reached the destination. When enquired over telephone, the General Manager of APS informed that the materials were presumed to be lost in transit and he will compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. But even after repeated demands the opposite parties have not paid the amount. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their side and that caused much difficulties and also financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for getting an order directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.67,145/-, the actual loss sustained by him and also cost of these proceedings.

3. Even after receiving the notice issued from the District Forum, the opposite parties didn’t turn-up or file their version. Hence they were set ex-parte.

4. The complainant filed affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 series were marked on his side.

5. On the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant the District allowed the complaint and ordered to pay Rs. 67,145/- as the price of the lost articles along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties filed this appeal.

6. Main ground raised by the appellants in the appeal is that the District Forum failed to consider the fact that the consignment was already delivered to the respondent. The appellants have produced the copy of consignment note here. The appellants further argued that after receiving the notice from the Forum, appellants’ agent personally talked about the consignment with the respondent/complainant and settled the matter with them. Hence the appellants did not appear before the District Forum. Hence they prayed for remission of the case for fresh disposal.

7. We heard the arguments of the appellants, but we are not satisfied with the reason submitted by them for their non-appearance before the District Forum. But for the interest of justice an opportunity has to be given to the appellant to contest their case before the District Forum and decide the case on merit. Hence we have not gone through the merits of the case. However, remission of the case after setting aside the order of the District Forum can be ordered only on terms, directing the appellants to compensate the injury likely to be caused by the delay in culmination of the proceedings to the complainant/respondent. Appellants have to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent/complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order and remission of the case.

The respondent is permitted to get release of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the amount deposited by the appellants at the time of institution of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the appeal before this Commission, on proper application. The appellants have the right to withdraw the balance amount, on proper application. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum, Kozhikode in C.C. No. 623/2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellants to file version and to adduce evidence, if any. The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint as early as possible.