OWNER Vs. R. SENTHIL KUMAR
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. Senthil Kumar, Partner K.R. Enterprises
Click here to view full judgement.
M. THANIKACHALAM, J. -
(1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The complainant, who is carrying on business, in textile goods, had
booked two bundles of handloom goods, in the office of the 2nd opposite
party, the branch of the 1st opposite party, for delivery to the
consignee by name Kaveri Textiles, Ambattur, Chennai, on 2.5.2003, as per
the way bill No.06766, worth about Rs.84,910, which was agreed to be
carried and delivered by the opposite parties, to the consignee intact.
But the consignment had not reached the destination. It appears, as
informed, there was pilferage on the way, resulting loss of goods, for
which a criminal complaint has been given, to the police station. Even
thereafter, when the complainant requested the opposite parties to pay
the value of the goods, since as agreed, not carried the same to the
destination, notice also issued, which also failed to yield any result,
which should be construed as not only negligence, but also deficiency in
service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the case, to
recover the value of the goods, viz. Rs.87,285/-, with interest thereon,
as well for the compensation of Rs.5000/-.
(3.) The opposite party, admitting their position as well the entrustment
of the goods, raised an objection, that the complaint itself is not
maintainable, since the complainant is not a consumer, and if at all,
they ought to have moved the civil forum, for appropriate relief, that
there was no contract between the complainant and the opposite parties,
which follows, there could be no deficiency in service or negligence, as
the case may be, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.