VISIT - 1PERMANANT LOK ADALATH

ERNAKULAMApplication No. OP 90/2015 29/05/15

Applicant

Katson TradersRepresented by proprietorM.C.JollyBanerjee RoadHigh Court Junction.Ernakulum, Kochi-682031

Respondent

The professional couriers,Represented by the DirectorJacob Vallanatt Road,Kochi-682018

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 22(C) OF THE

LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987

1. The applicant is running business in Ernakulum. This is the only

sources of his livelihood of its proprietor

2. The respondent is running the business of courier service with its

operation office in Ernakulum in the address shown above and is

represented by the manager.

3. The applicant entrusted with the respondent a consignment of

electrical goods to be sent back to the manufacturer ABB,

Bangalore on 29.05.2013 from whom it was purchased

earlier. After satisfying all the conditions/requirements and

receiving Rs. 750/- as their charge the respondent accepted as

per docket No.038857206 dated 29.05.2013. The materials value

of Rs.17400/- as declared by the applicant was also accepted.

4. The consignment was not delivered to the consignee within the

agreed time. The applicant knowing about this informed the

respondent about the non-delivery through telephone and

letters. The employee of the respondent agreed to look into the

matter and deliver the consignment immediately.

5. The applicant believed the words of the respondent and waited

in the belief that the consignment would be delivered by the

respondent as agreed by them. The consignment has not yet

been delivered to the consignee even now. The respondent has

not informed the applicant about the whereabouts of the

consignment and neither returned the consignment to the

applicant if unable to deliver it to the consignee due to any

reason.

6. The consignment of electrical goods was being sent to the

manufacturer who on its receipt would replace it with other

goods or its value would be paid to the applicant in accordance

with the agreement with them.

7. Due to the failure on the part of the respondent to deliver the

goods the applicant has suffered a loss of Rs.17,400/- being the

value of the electrical goods. Aggrieved by the non-delivery and

delaying delivery or compensating him the applicant caused to

issue a registered lawyer notice dated 09.05.2014 to the

respondent demanding them to deliver the consignment

immediately to the

8. consignee or to compensate the applicant by paying Rs 50,000/-

being the value of the consignment and the loss suffered by the

applicant.

9. The notice was received by the respondent but they have neither

sent any reply nor complied with the request in the notice. The

respondent agreed to settle the matter by compensating but did

not keep the word. Their attempt was only to prolong the

matter.

10. The respondent has even though acknowledged this has in

spite of all the pleadings of the helpless applicant failed to

deliver the consignment. This attitude had caused considerable

monetary loss, mental pain and suffering to this applicant. The

applicant had also spent amounts towards travelling and

corresponding expenses in this matter.

11. The applicant is legally entitled to get the consignment

delivered or get it returned or its value with the damage

suffered. He is also entitled to and is claiming compensation for

the loss suffered due to the non delivery or return of

consignment. The applicant is also entitled to and claiming

compensation for the mental pain and suffering caused by the

respondent. The applicant is entitled and is claiming Rs.50,000/-

as total compensation under all the above heads.

12. The cause of action for filling this application arose on and

after the respondent agreed to deliver the consignment on

29.05.2013 and on several occasions when the applicant had

informed the respondent about the deficiency in service and on

09.05.2014 when the applicant sent a notice to the respondent.

All the cause of action occurred within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Authority. The

applicant and the respondent are residing and functioning at

Ernakulum within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority.

The applicant therefore humbly pray that this Hon’ble Forum may be

pleased to take this application by directing the respondent to pay to

the applicant Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) with interest at the rate of

12% annum till payment with cost.

Dated this the 28th day of May 2015

Applicant represented by

The Manager Partner

What is stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

and belief.

Applicant represented by

The Manager Partner

Counsel for the Applicant

List of Documents

1. Debit Note - Purchase Return dated 29.05.2013

2. Consignee Receipt No. 38857206, dated 29.08.2014 issued by the

respondent

3. Letter dated 13.09.2013 issued by the applicant to the respondent

4. Letter dated 18.03.2014 from the applicant to the respondent

5. Lawyer’s Notice dated 09.05.2015

6. Acknowledgement card showing receipt by the respondent

Dated this the 28th Day of May 2015-08-04

Sd/-Counsel for the

Applicant

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PERMANANT LOK ADALATHat ERNAKULAM

Application No OP 90/2015 29.05.2015

KELSON TRADERSRepresented by Proprietor : ApplicantM.C.JOLLY

VsThe PROFESSIONAL COURIERS : RespondentRepresented by the Manager

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 22(C) OF THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT 1987

K.P Suresh KumarCounsel for the Applicant

Discussions during the proceedings on 4th August , 2015 at Kaloor was

as follows

The proceeding started at 11 AM with Advocate Sh M M Mathew

representing the applicant and the respondent was represented by

Sh. K Srinivas , Dy Manager, Professional couriers

Chairman of the Lok Adalat Sh Papachan has enquired why the

claim has been kept at Rs 50000/- as the loss was only 17400/-, to

which the applicant said that the additional amount was in relation

to certain expenses incurred due to non availability of such

undelivered parcel.

The respondent was willing to settle the amount for Rs 10000/-,

which the applicant was not willing to as the same was below the

cost.

The Chairman has directed both the parties to agree for another

round of negotiation and come out with a mutually agreeable

solution.

The chairman has kept the next posting on 19th August, 2015, for

deciding the matter after knowing the result of the negotiation.

PRESENTATION BY THE GROUP

Facts:Xavier Latex Industry is an establishment coming under the ID Act. Due to

unavailability of raw material, the company is shut down. Employees are

retrenched. BMC and INTUC files suit. Retrenchment compensation not paid

to the workers as on date of suit. HC orders for Mediation

The mediator, whose role was played by myself ( Sankar P), opened the discussion by allowing the petitioner to explain their points in brief. Mediator emphasized that the discussion will be only to the point of contention by the petitioners.

1 The representative of INTUC played by Sri Sajeer briefed the entire facts and also raised the following points

Retrenchment was not the appropriate decision. Instead lock out was more appropriate in the current situation of non-availability of the raw materials.

Emphasized the importance of absence of natural justice.

1 The representative of BMS represented by Sri Sanal Kumar raised the following points:

Management Vindictive. Pick and choose the workers who are not in

the good books of the management.

Last in First out policy not followed.

No notice as per Section 25 of ID Act has been issued to employees

Lack trust on the management as their decision was purely vindictive

6 months has elapsed since the retrenchment has been ordered and

no compensation was paid

No written letter were given to the employees by the management.

Point raised by Sanjeev Kumar ( Manager HRD) Retrenchment is not a punitive act from company’s part

Point raised by Sasidharan, Counsel of the respondent company.

Company is going through worst crisis as RM is a critical factor

Company in touch with the dealers for raw material for its regular

purchase.

In touch with the banks to get money to pay compensation. Expects the

money in 3 months time.

Informed informally to the party leaders

Will take back the employees as soon as operations become normal

Mediator has opined that the matter has to be forwarded to Labour court

instead of High court. The management also did not follow the process, as

the correct process is to lock out instead of declaring retrenchment. Mediator

also opined that the employees should have called up for a discussion with

the management before filing suit. Mediator has alerted the company to take

quick action so that the laborers are not put to misery.

Decision

The mediator has issued an Award which essentially recommended for an

Agreement to be signed by both the parties containing the following points

and send to high court for its knowledge and orders. The points to be

contained in the Agreement are

a. Target date of taking back the employees

b. Payment of compensation within reasonable time within the limit

fixed by the ID Act before 30 days of the mediation.

c. Taking back of staff should be based on the process laid down in ID

act. Ie., Experienced person should be given first preference