ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION Vs. VASAVI TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of one order passed by the District Forum, Madras-South in O. P. No.740/ 95. Hence both me appeals can be heard and disposed of in one order here.

(2.) The complainant booked goods worth Rs.1,19,400/- through the opposite party M/s. Economic Transport Organisation on 1.6.1994 to be delivered to M/s. Panacea Pharmaceuticals, Industrial Estate, Berhampur, Orissa under door delivery condition. According to the complainant he did not receive the bill amount from the consignee and therefore he wrote two letters on 20.3.1995 and 27.3.1995 to the opposite party. A reminder was also sent on 27.4.1995. Only to that reminder the opposite party sent a reply dated 16.5.1995 stating that they did not know whether the consignment was held up for want of the opposite party's road permit. The complainant again wrote a letter on 27.5.1995 for which there was no reply. Then the complainant wrote another letter on 9.6.1995 requesting the opposite party to return the goods and to that letter the opposite party replied that the consignment was held up at its Berhampur Office and requested the complainant to advise the consignee to approach that office and to pay the freight charges and talu- delivery of the goods. Therefore the complainant caused a legal notice on 20.6.1995 claiming that cost of the consignment and also compensation. To that the opposite party sent a reply raising untenable grounds. On these grounds, alleging deficiency in service on the part of me opposite party the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to pay the value of the goods viz. , Rs.1,19,400/- with interest @ 18% p. a. from 1.6.1994 till realisation and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the loss of reputation and mental agony.

(3.) The opposite party contended that the goods had reached Berhampur on 21.6.1994 itself and as such there was no delay in transporting the goods. The consignee was informed about it but the consignee told them that he had not ordered for any goods with the complainant and the goods in question had been banned in Orissa and therefore he was not taking delivery of the goods. The goods were lying in the opposite party's godown for one year without payment of any freight charges as well as demurrage charges. The complainant instead of taking back the goods had come with this complaint. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.