BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.464 of 2017

Date of Instt. 06.12.2017

Date of Decision: 08.05.2019

Parshotam Lal Gupta aged about 84 years son of late Sh. Ram Lal Gupta resident of 890, Urban Estate Phase-II, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. (DPGC) Regd and Head Office DPGC House, Patel Chowk, GT Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. H. S. Randhawa, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

None for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is sole proprietor of M/s Puneet Book Shop, 890, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Jalandhar and doing the business of supplying the books to the retailers under the name and style of Puneet Book Shop. The complainant is having the only source of his livelihood and is self employed. The complainant does not have any source of income and solely dependent for his earning on this account. The complainant has sent his books, vide Invoice No.R-3 dated 21.03.2017, amounting to Rs.24,288/- to Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd., Daryagangj, New Delhi through the OP i.e. DPGC in two boxes through booking GR No.JAL2299083 dated 21.03.2017 against the fare of Rs.176/- from Jalandhar to Noida. Before booking, the OP assured the complainant for the smooth supply of goods without any failure. The OP also made assurance for the correct and punctual delivery of the said two boxes at the destination without any delay or interruption. The OP claimed that they are providing best services in the market for transporting of goods booked with them and the OP also took the responsibility to transport the above said two boxes in time and in safe and sound condition. Despite lapse of nine months, the OP has not been succeeded in transporting the above said two boxes to Noida as per booking even after receiving the charges in advance.

2. That the complainant approached the OP many time to confirm the delivery of the said two boxes. The complainant also sent in writing to the OP DPGC for refund of amount of Rs.24,288/- i.e. the value of the lost cartons (two) of books, which were booked, vide GR JAL2299083 dated 21.03.2017. Several mails have been dropped by the complainant to the OP to confirm the proper delivery of the two cartons of books having value of Rs.24,288/-. Moreover, Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. is also putting pressure upon the complainant for supply of the said books. The letter dated 22.08.2017 received by the recipient on 25.08.2017 in the office of the OP is also attached. Apart from this, several emails have been made to the OP for the safe delivery of the said books, but to no effect. Copies of the mail are also attached for ready reference. The complainant even personally approached the OP and requested for the safe and early delivery of the said books in two cartons, but the OP has not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant and even refused to listen his genuine request. The facts and circumstances narrated in the complaint prima-facie proves that there was a serious deficiency on the part of the OP in rendering proper services to the complainant and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.24,288/- along with booking amount of Rs.176/- plus interest @ 18% per annum till its realization and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further OP be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable in the present form and further averred that the complainant does not fall in the definition of Consumer as described in the Consumer Protection Act. The books allegedly booked for the destination at Noida to be returned by the book seller to the company, which falls in the out dated books, having no commercial value, this fact has been disclosed while booking the consignment. It is worth while to mention here that two bundle of the alleged return books has been received and same has been sent at Noida Office. It is worth mention that at Noida Office the consignee's representative Chint Ram used to approach our office at Noida in order to receiving the consignment in routine manner. At that time, these two packets were also there, but one of the packet was opened and while receiving other consignment, he also took some portion of the consignment which was booked by the complainant from Jalandhar to Noida. However, one bundle/packet is also lying at our Noida Office and answering respondent number of times requested the complainant to make arrangement to took the delivery of that packet and to further take the short certificate if any, but the complainant never bother for the same and had filed the present complaint with malafide intention to extract illegal amount from the respondent company. As already submitted that the alleged books are having no commercial value, but the consignor/complainant had filed the false and frivolous complaint under reply. The answering respondent is taking care of the bundle lying at Noida Office for the last one year or so. The answering respondent is entitled to the damages charges from the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant booked some books for sending to the same at Noida, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 Retail Invoice, Ex.C-2 Copy of Booking Receipt dated 21.03.2017, Ex.C-3 Letter dated 22.08.2017 for refund of the amount, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 Reminders through Gmail and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. It is established on the file that the complainant is running a Puneet Book Shop at Jalandhar for his livelihood and his self employment and accordingly, the books in two cartons were booked by the complainant with the OP for sending the same at destination i.e. Noida and in order to prove this fact, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA and further bill/invoice Ex.C-1 dated 21.03.2017, whereby the Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. Co., New Delhi purchased the said books after making a payment of the value of the said books i.e. Rs.24,288/- and through GR No.JAL2299083 dated 21.03.2017, the said two bundles of the books were handed over to the OP Company for safe delivery of the same at Noida and in lieu of that services, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.176/- and the value of the goods have been also assessed and mentioned on the said GR Ex. C-2 i.e. of Rs.24,288/- and the place of booking as well as the place of destination is also mentioned on the said GR Ex.C-2 and as per the said GR, the OP has to deliver the said two bundles of books at Godown of Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. Co., at Noida, but till date, the books were not delivered and accordingly, the complainant asked to the OP, vide email dated 02.06.2017 Ex.C-4 to trace out two cartons of GR No.JAL2299083, then complainant again gave a reminder through email Ex.C-5 and reply of the said email has been given by the OP and copy of the same is Ex.C-6. So, from all the documents available on the file itself established that the two cartons contain a books are not delivered till today at its destination and in response to that the OP alleged that the books in question are out dated and having no commercial value and further took a plea that one representative of the consignee at Noida Office i.e. Chint Ram took a part consignment and remaining is still lying in the office of the OP at Noida and despite repeated request of the OP to the complainant to get deliver the said consignment to the consignee i.e. Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. Co., at Noida and as such, there is no fault on the part of the OP rather the OP is entitled to get damages charges from the complainant for storing the bundle in the office of the OP.

8. We have considered the plea of the OP and find that the OP has miserably failed to bring on the file any documentary evidence in the shape of letter/email, whereby the OP at any time asked the complainant to make arrangement to deliver the lying goods in the office of the OP, to the consignee i.e. Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. Co., so simply took a oral plea is not sufficient, it should be supported by some black and white evidence, but in this case, the OP has miserably failed to bring on the file any authenticated proof for retaining the said books of the complainant in its office at Noida and accordingly, we find that there is a grave negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, by retaining the books of the complainant for about two years and the same now become out dated and therefore, complainant is entitled for sufficient amount of compensation from the OP for this negligence.

9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted and OP is directed to reimburse the value of the goods i.e. Rs.24,288/- + booking amount of Rs.176/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of booking i.e. 21.03.2017, till its realization. Further, OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and further OP is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

08.05.2019 Member President