Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/83/2014

Ramesh Kumar Jain Son of Mithalal Ranka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Logistics Register Office. Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

B.Balendra Singh and B.sreenivasan

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :22-11-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:31-12-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the 31^st day of  December, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.83/2014

 

Ramesh Kumar Jain, S/o.Mithalal Ranka,

Proprietor of Mamata Electricals,

Opposite to Madhura Sweets,  Subedarpet,

Nellore.                                                                                                ..… Complainant   

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	Deepak Logistics, Register Office, Represented by it’s Manager, 8-2-681/4, Road No.12, Banjarahills, Hyderabad-500034.
2.	Deepak Logistics, Represented by it’s Branch Manager, Flat No.203, 2nd floor, Bhanot Plaza-1, D.V.Gupta Road, Pahadgung, New Delhi-110055.
3.	Deepak Logistics, Represented by it’s Branch Manager, Near Nethaji E.M.School, James Garden, Vijayamahalgate Centre, Nellore, S.P.S.R.Nellore District, A.P.                                      ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .

            This complaint coming on 18-12-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri B. Balendra Singh, advocate for the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent Sri D. Chandrasekhar,  advocate for the opposite party No.3  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  prays to direct the opposite parties  to deliver the 9 bags of PVC  wires which was booked or to pay its cost of Rs.21,848/- with  interest at 12% p.a. from the date of booking  i.e.,                 08-12-2013 to till the date of realization, damages of Rs.50,000/- for not delivering the goods  and for causing mental agony, costs and such other further reliefs.

 

2.         The brief averments of the complaint are that complainant got booked                9 bags of PVC wires from  Sahadara, New Delhi on 08-12-2013 through M/s. Jain Enterprises, Delhi.  While he purchased the goods  to M.E. “Mamata Electricals”, Nellore through No.2 of the  opposite party  to deliver the goods to the complainant through  the  3^rd opposite party, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the branches of No.1 of the opposite party, which is the registered office.  While booking the goods the 2^nd opposite party issued  consignment note bearing No.8070665.  So far till today the 3^rd opposite party  did not deliver the same to the complainant.   The complainant approached the                       3^rd opposite party on number of occasions to enquire about the goods for delivery.   As and when the  complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party  saying that  the goods are at 1^st opposite party and the same will be delivered very shortly.  But though the months have passed, the 3^rd opposite party did not choose to deliver the goods to the complainant.  Thus the complainant got issued a lawyer notice on 17-02-2014 calling upon all the opposite parties to deliver the goods within a week from the date of receipt of the notice.  Eventhough notice received by them, they did not comply the demand.  But  while preparing the  complaint,  it is  noticed that notice was issued by mistake complainant name was wrongly shown.  Then once again another notice issued on 19-04-2014 to the opposite parties   by rectifying the earlier mistake which was also  served on them.  The

complainant further stated that  the opposite parties  are doing logistics business to transport the goods to the destination.  The complainant  having good faith on the opposite parties  booked the goods  with the 2^nd opposite party by expecting that  the goods will deliver to him in time through the 3^rd opposite party.  Though the opposite party booked the goods on 08-12-2013, the same was not delivered to the complainant till today i.e., on the date of complaint. The attitude of the opposite parties is nothing but dereliction of duties and deficiency of service.  The 9 bags of PVC wires worth about  Rs.21,848/- not delivering the same in time and retaining them for months together which caused mental agony to the complainant and as to compensate damages  for Rs.50,000/-.  Thus the complaint is filed  gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties seeking relief as prayed for in the complaint.

 

3.         The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties called absent.  No representation on their behalf.  

The 3^rd opposite party  filed counter / written version denying all the averments made in the complaint except that of specifically admitted herein.  The 3^rd opposite party contended that the complainant had issued two legal notices one is on 17-02-2014 in which the said notice did not mention  the date and also name of the complainant.  Another notice dated 19-02-2014 issued in which complainant’s name mentioned.  The two notices issued by the complainant are inconsistent.

 

4.         The 3^rd opposite party further contended that the complainant produced document No.1 i.e., xerox copy in which Jain Enterprises booked a parcel which could not be accepted  as per Evidence Act.  The 3^rd opposite party further stated that it may be true the complainant mentioned his name as Ramesh Kumar Jain in document No.1. Hence, there is controversial on the part of complainant. The opposite party further contended that it is true that Jain Enterprises booked a parcel for which the 1^st opposite party issued a receipt.  In the said receipt and in the 2^nd column is “Self” but not Ramesh Kumar as he is complainant but in the xerox copy of the said receipt  the name of the complainant was incorporated. To avoid  inconsistent circumstances original receipt of document No.1 should be produced but not in xerox. It is further stated that complainant is not the owner of Jain Enterprises.  The complainant stated his address in the complaint as he is the owner of Mamata Electricals.  Hence, the complaint has not  come to this Forum with clean hands.

5.         The 3^rd opposite party further submitted that  it is true  that the goods  delivered to  one Pulla Rao, who is agent of Jain Enterprises and took original receipt by putting his signature on the back side of the receipt as that of his name  as Pulla Rao, as per document No.l of 3^rd opposite party.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed  with costs  and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

 

6.         The points for  determination  would be for consideration  is

(1)    Whether there is  negligence  or deficiency in service on the part of opposite

         parties?  If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed

         for?

(2)   To what relief?

7.         In order to substantiate  the complainant averments, complainant filed evidence on affidavit  as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5.  On the other hand,   the opposite party filed chief affidavit as R.W.1 and no exhibits marked on its behalf.  The complainant filed his written arguments.  Heard.

            8.         POINT No.1:  The claim arises out of the alleged failure of the opposite parties to deliver the consignment of  PVC wires booked with the opposite parties  from Delhi to Nellore and delivered to the M/s.Jain Enterprises. The complaint is filed by one Ramesh Kumar Jain said to be proprietor  of Mamata Electricals, Subedarpet, Nellore.  As seen from the  delivery invoice, the goods were booked by Jain Enterprises for self.  Therefore the goods have to be delivered to M/s.Jain Enterprises of Nellore.  The  present complaint of the complainant  is that the said goods were not delivered to Mamata  Electricals. Jain Enterprises and  Mamata Electricals  are different entities. As per the   particulars of the  consignee, the goods have to be delivered to M/s.Jain Enterprises and not to Mamata Electricals.  It is not  the version of the complainant that  both are the business consumers of the  same family.  While it is the grievance of the complainant that  9 bags of  PVC  wires entrusted to the opposite parties for transport were not delivered to Mamata Electricals .  It is the  version of the  opposite parties   that the goods were delivered to Pulla Rao, an agent of M/s.Jain Enterprises.  If the version of the opposite parties is taken into account, it is in accordance with the original receipt.  In the original receipt filed alongwith counter, the name of the consignor is shown as Jain Enterprises and name of the  consignee  is shown as self, which means that  the goods shall be delivered to  M/s.Jain Enterprises.  The complainant wants to take advantage the private mark mentioned as  ME/9 for making a  claim about non-delivery.  Private marks are made for easily  identifying the goods consigning  and it is made  for the convenience of the transport logistics.  The goods  were not consigned to M/s.Mamata Enterprises but were consigned to Jain Enterprises. The goods are  accordingly delivered to Pulla Rao, agent of  Jain Enterprises.  M/s.Jain Enterprises has not denied that  Pulla Rao is not their agent. The falsity of present claim is very much evident from the two notices one                        dated  17-02-2014 and  another dated 19-04-2014.  In the notice dated 17-02-2014, Jain Enterprises is shown as the client under whose instructions  that notice was issued.  Conveniently the name of the  proprietor is not mentioned  from the consignee copy of the invoice, the name of the consignor is shown as Jain Enterprises and the person to whom it should be delivered is shown as self -  Ramesh Kumar Jain.  Taking advantage of the failure of the opposite parties to issue reply notice, the 2^nd notice dated 19-04-2014 was issued  as if it was issued under instructions of Ramesh Kumar  Jain, proprietor of Mamata Electricals.  The goods were not meant to be  delivered to Mamata Electricals and it was to be delivered to M/s.Jain Enterprises, which was correctly delivered to  M/s.Jain Enterprises, the present complaint is nothing but  a gamble.  There are no merits in the complaint and it is intended to make unlawful gain.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

           9.          POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 31^st day of  December, 2015.

                    Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

09-07-2015

Sri.Ramesh Kumar Jain , S/o.Mithalal Ranka,  Nellore (Chief  Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

14-08-2015

Sri A.B.Ganapathi, S/o.A.S.Viswanatha Soruthy,  Business, Nellore City (Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	08-12-2001	Photocopy of  consignment note No.8070665 in favour of complainant  issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A2  -	17-02-2014	Legal notice from  Jain Enterprises, Nellore to the opposite parties alongwith registered postal receipts.
Ex.A3  -	-	Three postal acknowledgements received from opposite parties sent by the complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A4  -	-	Legal notice from  complainant’s advocate to the  opposite parties alongwith registered post receipts.
Ex.A5  -	-	Photocopy of  Track Result for RN6779747021N,  RN6779747161N and RN6779746051N details issued by the Indian Posts.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

                                                                                                                                  Id/-

 

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri B. Balendar Singh, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	M/s.Deepak Logistics, Register Office, Represented by it’s Manager, 8-2-681/4, Road No.12, Banjarahills, Hyderabad-500034.
3.	M/s.Deepak Logistics, Represented by it’s Branch Manager, Flat No.203, 2nd floor, Bhanot Plaza-1, D.V.Gupta Road,Pahadgung, New Delhi-110055.
4.	Sri D. Chandrasekhar, Advocate, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: