ORDER

16.10.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant  booked certain goods to be delivered at Burnpur, West Bengal and for the said purpose, the complainant took the services of OP1 who being the Transporter and booked the goods vide its GR No.6218 dated 13.09.2014, containing 477 Boxes of electrical goods.
2. It is stated that OP1 upon its own responsibility loaded the goods in Truck No.WB-39-A-8244 in the name of OP2, being driven by Shri Rinku Ram for the aforesaid purposes. It is further stated that the entire goods worth about Rs.22,64,428/- were loaded in the Truck and the complainant provided the Way Bill Key Number for carrying the said goods to other state i.e from Delhi to West Bengal and the same was provided to OP1, to be handed over to the driver OP2.  It is stated that driver OP2 was also duty bound to collect the said Way Bill/Road Permit, through Way Bill Key Number, to ensure timely delivery of the goods to the consignee, which belonged to other state, as the same was Inter-State Sale, at the time of crossing the border and entering into the State West Bengal from the Booth situated at the Border of West Bengal.
3. It is stated that the Driver OP2 failed to get the Way Bill/Road Permit, despite the fact that the Way Bill Key Number was provided to OP1 and OP1 was duty bound to provide the same to the driver OP2, however, the driver OP2 failed to procure the Way Bill/Road Permit for the reasons best known to him which he was duty bound in law to collect the same and only then cross the Border and is not authorized to cross the Border without the same. It is further stated that however, to the utter disregard of the duties as the Driver OP2, the Driver OP2 crossed the Border without the Way Bill/Road Permit and was intercepted by the Sales Tax/Commercial Tax Department of West Bengal, who detained the truck of the OPs along with the goods of the complainant.
4. It is stated that driver OP2 was also granted 24 hours time to produce and present the said Way Bill/Road Permit from the time of the detention of the goods by the aforesaid Department. It is stated that despite the fact, the driver OP2 failed to procure the Way Bill/Road Permit from the Border of West Bengal from the concerned authorized department, despite having the Way Bill Key Number available with him, which can be procured even through agents. It is stated that the complainant was constrained to pay a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- to the Government of West Bengal, Directorate of Commercial Tax, on account of illegal acts of the OPs and its employees to get his goods released from the Sales Tax Department.
5. It is stated that the illegal acts of the OPs did not even stopped thereafter, and even after release of the goods, the goods were not delivered to the consignee and the OP2 forced the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.52,500/- in his Bank Account through RTGS and only then he shall get the goods delivered and further threatened to sell the goods somewhere else, in case the said amount is not deposited. It is further stated that the said amount was illegally demanded by the OP2 for the alleged detention of truck for longer period, in fact, there was no fault on the part of the complainant and the entire fault was either of OP1 or of the driver OP2, as he failed to procure the Way Bill/Road Permit, with malafide intentions. It is further stated that despite the said fact, the said amount of Rs.52,500/- was transferred to the account of OP2 through NEFT dated 29.10.2014.
6. It is stated that it was only after illegally receiving the aforesaid amount by OP2 despite the fact that there was no Direct  Dealing between the complainant and OP2, the goods were delivered by OP2 driver, who originally belonged to West Bengal. It is further stated that the complainant had further spent a sum of about Rs.50,000/- on account of release of goods from West Bengal including legal charges, advocates and other related expenses.
7. It is stated that as and when the goods were delivered to the consignee, the recipient of the goods, levied the penalty of Rs.45,280/- upon the complainant, on account of delay in supply of goods, which was in fact, due to the fault on the part of OPs and deficit services being provided by them. It is further stated that even the driver OP2 had not supplied the entire goods and had supplied the short material to the consignee, amounting to about Rs.52,000/- which also the complainant is entitled to recover from the OPs. It is further stated that the supply of short material is also specified in the receipt from the consignee, to whom the goods were delivered.
8. It is stated that both the OPs have jointly and severally committed number of criminal acts and have also provided deficit services to the complainant, as enumerated above, for which they are liable to be prosecuted and the complainant shall be compensated to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental pain and  agony, being suffered by the complainant on account of the acts, deeds and things committed by the OPs, with malafide intention in order to cause loss to the complainant and to cause wrongful gain to themselves.  It is further stated that complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs through his counsel dated 04.04.2015 through Speed post A.D. dated 09.04.2015 and asked the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,84,280/- along with interest @ 24% per annum, from the date of payment till realization and a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony, suffered by the complainant on account of illegal acts and deficit services being provided by the OPs, jointly and severally. It is stated that said legal notice was duly served upon the OPs, but the OPs did not comply with the said notice. The copy of legal notice and postal receipts are filed on record.
9. Complainant is seeking direction against OPs to pay Rs.4,84,280/- along with interest @ 24% per annum, for the date of payment till realization, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- compensation for mental pain and  agony being suffered by the complainant, to pay Rs.25,000/- at litigation charges and to pass any further order which deems fit and proper.
10. OP1 filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law. It is stated that even otherwise the complainant is not consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is stated that the present complaint is based upon the false and concocted contentions and the OP1 has been falsely dragged in the present litigation. It is further stated that the present complaint is without any merits and the same has been filed by the complainant just to extort money from the OP1. It is stated that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive and on the basis of false and frivolous allegations. It is stated that the present complaint is based upon the false and concocted contentions and the OP1 has been falsely dragged in the present litigation.
12. It is stated that each and every contents of the complaint is false, vague and concocted as the complainant in this case himself was at fault. It is further stated that the complainant in this case himself failed to provide the requisite valid Way Bill Key Number for carrying the said goods/road permit to the respondents; hence it cannot be said that there was any deficiency or negligence at the part of the replying OP1.
13. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP1 and reiterated contents of preliminary objections. It is stated that the complainant was duty bound to provide the genuine and valid way bill key number/road permit to the driver of the vehicle in question but complainant failed for which solely liable and cannot take benefit of his own wrong. It is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint.
14. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
15. As per record vide  order dated 28.08.2018 the OP2 was deleted from the array of parties and OP1 proceeded ex parte at the stage of filing of written arguments.
16. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant relied on copy of invoice of OP1 Ex.PW1/1, copy of receipt of payment of Rs.2,85,000/- Ex.PW1/2, copy of packing  list of  material Ex.PW1/3, copy of driving license of Shri Rinku Ram Ex.PW1/4, copy of R.C. Ex.PW1/5, copy of permit Ex.PW1/5, copy of insurance policy Ex.PW1/6, copy of fitness of said truck Ex.PW1/6, copy of proceedings initiated by Sales Tax Department at West Bengal Ex.PW1/7 (colly), copy of letter dated 20.11.2014 issued by the insurance company Ex.PW1/8, copy of letter dated 29.10.2014 issued by Citi Bank for payment of Rs.52,000/- to Shri Pinku Ram Ex.PW1/9 and copy of legal notice Ex.PW1/10 and postal receipts Ex.PW1/11 (colly).
17.  Written arguments filed by complainant.
18. We have heard Sh. Deepak Jain counsel for complainant. OP1 is ex parte.
19. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant booked certain goods to be delivered at Burnpur, West Bengal and booked OP1 on 13.09.2014. The complainant alleged that a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- paid to the Government of West Bengal on account of illegal acts of OP1 as the goods were detained by the Sales Tax Department. The copy of order dated 18.09.2014 of Sales Tax Officer filed on record. The complainant also alleged that the driver of the OP1 forced to deposit Rs.52,000/- for getting the goods delivered. As per record all the above proceedings taken up by the Sales Tax Department of West Bengal as the driver of OP1 when entered in the West Bengal he failed to produce Way Bill/Road Permit. The complainant alleged that he had provided the Way Bill Key number to OP1 but driver of OP1 failed to procure and cross the border which was detained by the Sales Tax Authority of West Bengal as found to be unauthorized. The OP1 specifically denied the allegations that complainant did not provide valid Way Bill Key Number/Road Permit. We have gone through the evidence filed by complainant. The complainant proved on record in total 11 documents however no copy of Way Bill Key Number or the Road Permit proved on record. The complainant also not specifically mentioned the mode of providing the Way Bill Key Number to OP1 and any acknowledgment proof of the same. In order to establish the deficiency of service on the part of OP1 it is mandatory of prove that a valid Way Bill Key Number was duly provided to OP1. However, complainant failed to prove the same, therefore, failed to establish deficiency of service on the part of OP1. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
20. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  16.10.2024.

        SANJAY KUMAR                                       NIPUR CHANDNA    

                           PRESIDENT                                                 MEMBER