Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/89/2023

PUNEET BASSI - Complainant(s)

Versus

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL SHARMA ADV.

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/89/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	25/04/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	29/02/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Puneet Bassi son of Sh.Ved Prakash Bassi, Resident of House No. 23, Sector 5, Chandigarh.

 

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.   Cooper Corporation Pvt. Limited, having its Regd. Office at Nariman House M60/1, Additional MIDC, Post Kodoli, Satara, Maharashtra, through its Chairman.

 

2.   Farrokh N.Cooper, Chairman & Managing Director, Cooper Corporation Pvt. Limited, having its Regd. Office at Nariman House M60/1, Additional MIDC, Post Kodoli, Satara, Maharashtra.

 

3.   Total Power Solutions, Plot No.732, Office No.201, Level-2, JLPL Industrial Area, Sector 82, Mohali, through its Proprietor Barinder Singh.

 

4.   Barinder Singh, Proprietor, Total Power Solutions, Plot No.732, Office No.201, Level-2, JLPL Industrial Area, Sector 82, Mohali.

 

5.   Gavsinder Khanna, Authorized Representative of Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., C/o Total Power Solutions, Plot No.732, Office No.201, Level-2, JLPL Industrial Area, Sector 82, Mohali.

 

6.   Safexpress Pvt. Ltd., through its Chairman

 

Registered Office:- NH8, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110 037.

 

Branch Office:- Safexpress Cargo Complex, Makhan Majra Road, Daria, Chandigarh – 160101, Behind Railway Station, Village Daria, Near Himachal Kashmir Transport.

 

7.   Lucky Crane Service, Booth No.2, Transport Area, Sector 26, Chandigarh – 160019, through its Proprietor.

 

8.   Madhur Tomar, Regional Sales Head, Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., D-133, Sector 51, Noida-201307.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Atul Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Ullas Kapoor, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 & 2.
		Respondents No.3 to 8 ex-parte.

 

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.02.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/1062/2019 filed by Sh.Puneet Bassi – Complainant.

 

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3.      Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant (Appellant herein) that he, on the assurances given by Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 regarding the generator of Opposite Party No.1 booked the same by paying booking amount of ₹1 lakh and placed purchase order on 09.04.2019. The Opposite Party No.4 told the Complainant that the generator was ready for dispatch, but asked for remaining payment in advance. Accordingly, the Complainant made the entire payment as demanded by Opposite Party No.4 detailed as ₹1,24,560/- vide cheque No.636182, ₹70,000/- through Tata Credit Card on 19.04.2019 and ₹50,000/- through NEFT on 30.04.2019. It was alleged that on 06.05.2019, the representative of Opposite Party No.6 delivered a damaged generator which was duly informed to the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 by the Complainant and as such, the Complainant refused to take the delivery of the generator, but the Representative of Opposite Party No.6 told the Complainant that they had already got the documents signed from him which they surreptitiously got signed from him. The representative of Opposite Party No.6 fled away and left the generator on mid-road. The Complainant brought this incidence in the knowledge of Opposite Parties No.4 & 5, but to no avail. The Complainant also lodged police complaint against Opposite Party No.6.  It was alleged that thereafter, the Complainant time & again contacted Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 and 8, but nothing was done by them. However, Opposite Party No.4 offered to change the canopy of the generator, but the Complainant demanded for new generator as he paid for the same, thus the Opposite Party No.4 started avoiding the Complainant. It was stated that it was the duty of Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 and 8 to supply and install a new generator in a new undamaged condition in the premises of the complainant and they cannot shirk away from their responsibility. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.      In their joint reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 5 pleaded that the quotation containing the detailed terms & conditions given by Opposite Party No.3 was accepted by the Complainant and it was agreed between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3 that the unloading at your scope, installation extra at actual. So, the complainant himself hired services of Opposite Party No.7 (Lucky Crane Service) for unloading of the genset. The gen set was dispatched to the complainant after due testing in perfect running condition and without any external damage through Opposite Party No.6 (Safexpress Pvt. Ltd). Even the complainant received the genset from Opposite Party No.6 without any protest. Opposite Party No.7 could not properly unload the genset, resultantly the same fell down and its canopy got damaged. Therefore, there was no fault of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 as well. It was alleged that the genset damaged due to mishandling at the part of crane crew hired by the Complainant. It was averred that the genset was physically damaged due to negligence of either Opposite Party No.6 or Opposite Party No.7 while unloading, therefore, the answering Opposite Parties as well as Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 cannot be held liable for the same. It was further averred that the answering Opposite Parties have no role to play, except providing after warranty service against any manufacturing/operational defect in the genset. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.      Opposite Party No.6 filed its separate reply pleading that it was duly engaged by Opposite Party No.1 for delivery of the consignment in question from Satara to various parts of the India and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.05.2017 was duly executed between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.6 and the Complainant was not part of that MoU. It was averred that upon receiving the instruction qua the said genset from Opposite Party No.1, the answering Opposite Party with utmost care & diligence transported the said genset to the desired destination i.e. to the complainant. The complainant arranged crane from Opposite Party No.7 for unloading the genset. It was further averred that before unloading the genset the complainant alongwith the officials of Opposite Party No.3 checked the genset for any damage and after being satisfied with the condition of genset the complainant directed Opposite Party No.7 to unload the genset.  It was also alleged that while unloading the genset the Opposite Party No.7 negligently used excessive force in pulling the genset out of the truck and because of which the genset had collide with the hind door and interior walls of the truck and fell down on the road. It was submitted that the complainant had signed the POD without giving any remarks on that and as per terms & conditions envisaged in the MoU dated 26.05.2019, the answering Opposite Party was not liable in any manner. The cause of action set up by the complainant was denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

 

6.      Opposite Parties No. 3, 4, 7 and 8 did not turn up, despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 10.06.2021 and 20.01.2020 respectively, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

 

7.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. District Commission dismissed the consumer Complaint of the Complainant/ Appellant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

8.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

9.      Pertinently, in the present proceedings nobody appeared on behalf of Respondents No.3 to 8 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 03.08.2023.

 

10.      We have heard Learned Counsel  for the contesting parties and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

11.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

12.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

13.      It is the case of the Appellant that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.

 

14.      Per material on record, the vital question which requires its consideration is as to whether Respondents No.1, 2 & 5 were duty bound to get the generator unloaded safely and if so, whether they failed to do so and caused damage to the generator. Perusal of the quotation/offer (Annexure C-1) showed that there was a specific agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No.3 qua the unloading of genset, whereby the Appellant accepted the term & conditions that “unloading at your scope, installation extra at actual”. Meaning thereby, the unloading was to be carried out by the Appellant himself and in furtherance thereof he himself hired the services of Respondent No.7 (Lucky Crane Service) for unloading of the genset.

 

15.      Admittedly, the subject genset was dispatched through Respondent No.6 (Safexpress Pvt. Ltd). Even the Appellant received delivery of genset from Respondent No.6. These facts have duly been noticed by the Ld. District Commission in the order impugned before us. Respondent No.6 in their written version had maintained that the Appellant/ complainant had himself inspected the generator before unloading and after being satisfied with the conditions of generator he instructed Respondent No.7 to unload the same. There is every possibility that Respondent No.7 could not properly unload the genset resultantly the same fell down and its canopy got damaged.

 

16.      It is, therefore, manifest on record that the Appellant had agreed to get the genset unloaded at his own end and if the said genset was damaged due to negligence either of Respondent No.6 or Respondent No.7 while unloading, therefore, Respondents No.1, 2 & 5 cannot be held liable for the same. The Ld. Lower Commission has therefore rightly held that there was no fault on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8, in as much as, the Complainant/Appellant did not place on record any documentary evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there was not even an iota of allegation made by the Appellant in his entire Complaint against Respondent No.7 whose services has been hired by the Appellant/ complainant himself. No case is made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

17.      No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

18.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

19.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

20.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off as having become infructuous.

 

21.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

22.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

29^th Feb., 2024

               Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”