Case nº Revision Petition No. 528 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 24, 2014 (case VRL Logistics Ltd. Vs Konark Textile)

JudgeFor Appellant: Shankar Divate, Advocate and For Respondents: Banwari Lal Aggarwal
PresidentAjit Bharihoke, J. (Presiding Member) and Rekha Gupta Member
Resolution DateJuly 24, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Rekha Gupta Member

  1. Revision petition No. 528 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ('the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 71 of 2012.

  2. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the petitioner is a transport company and is engaged in transporting goods to various destinations and in lieu of this service, the petitioner company charges transportation fare from its customers.

  3. The respondent is a textile manufacturer and apart from selling its textile in local markets, the respondent also sells the same to other states. In the course of business, the respondent booked two Bales of cotton worth Rs. 30,000/- with the Petitioner for being transported to the consignee M/s. Vaibhav Apparels, Kompeli, Hyderabad through Bhilwara Branch of the petitioner company on 17.03.2010 through a forwarding note dated 16.03.2010 and the said consignment (cloth) was booked by the petitioner company through its bill (Builty) No. 449573582 dated 17.03.2010 and for which petitioner company fixed sum of Rs. 550/- i.e., Rs. 525/- as transportation fare and Rs. 25/- as miscellaneous expenses and which was to be recovered from the consignee after delivery of the consignment to him. It was assured by the petitioner company that the goods of the respondent will reach its destination, i.e., Kompeli, Hyderabad within 4-5 days. In this manner, respondent availed the services of the petitioner company and thus respondent is a consumer of petitioner-company.

  4. When the goods of the respondent did not reach its destination within the stipulated period, the respondent repeatedly requested the petitioner-company to make sure that the goods reach its destination. Ultimately when nothing fruitful emerged, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner-company through his counsel on 03.03.2011 and this notice was duly served upon the petitioner-company on 07.03.2011.

  5. Petitioner-company sent its reply to the above notice on 18.03.2011 and the respondent came to know for the first time that the goods booked by respondent instead of being delivered at its destination, were auctioned by the petitioner on 20.11.2010 for a paltry sum of Rs. 17,000/- without any intimation to the respondent. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the petitioner-company was patently erroneous and amounts to deficiency in service.

  6. It was therefore, prayed that the complaint of the respondent be allowed and the petitioner be directed to:

    (a) Pay to the respondent Rs. 30,000/- towards cost of the goods/cloth and Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony suffered by the respondent and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs and damages, i.e., a total sum of Rs. 38,000/-.

    (b) Costs of the complaint along with fee of the Advocate be also paid to the respondent by petitioner-company.

    (c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the respondent.

  7. Petitioner/opposite...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT