Haryana

Karnal

CC/192/2017

Kanishk Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Transport - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Goel

04 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.192 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. .05.06.2017

                                                         Date of decision:04.01.2019

 

Kanishk Gupta son of Shri Harish Kumar Gupta, Proprietor M/s Liberty Trends and M/s Liberty Leathers, 17 mile Stone, G.T. Road, Gharaunda, Karnal.                                                                                                                                             …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. DTDC Transport, Sector-16, Namastay Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. Regd. Office no.3, Victoria Road, Banglore-560047, through its Manager.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

       

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present:  Shri Vishal Goyal Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri B.S.Chauhan Advocate for OPs.

                               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is proprietor of M/s Liberty Trends and M/s Liberty Leathers, 17 mile stone, G.T. Road, Gharuanuda, Karnal which deals in manufacturing and selling of shoes. Complainant approached OP no.1 for transportation of 59 cartoons of shoes to be delivered to his distributor Vishal Enterprises, Shiva Bazar, Cuttuk, Odisha and booked his consignment vide Consignment no.100001021937 dated 14.03.2016. For 59 cartoons of shoes OPs issued three invoice nos.276, 302, 303 dated 15.03.2016 and charged Rs.9440/- for transportation of shoes cartoons. Each of the cartoon was containing 24 pairs of shoes and cost of each pair of shoe was Rs.299/-. OP no.1 assured complainant that their services are best and also assured the safety and delivered of all goods on time. On 1.4.2016 only 57 cartoons of shoes were delivered to the distributor of complainant namely Vishal Enterprises, Cuttuk, Odisha. When delivery of less cartoons were brought to the knowledge of the person delivering the cartoons then that delivery person acknowledged the same and gave in writing that 57 cartoons were delivered to Vishal Enterprises instead of 59 cartoons. OPs were deficient in services as in place of 59 cartoons they delivered 57 cartoons to the distributor of complainant. Distributor of complainant wrote several letters to OP no.2 and complainant from June 2016 to October 2016 about delivery of 57 cartoons in place of 59. The representative of the complainant approached the OPs several times to compensate the complainant with the value of 2 cartoons of shoes i.e Rs.14,352/- (48x299) and to compensate complainant for mental agony and harassment but OP no.1 showed his inability to compensate the complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.12.2016 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that complainant availed the services of the OPs for the purpose of the sale of its shoe items for commercial purpose, so the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further stated that neither booking voucher nor any kind of receipts vide which he has booked 59 cartoons of the shoe items with the complaint.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 15.2.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OPs vide his statement dated 20.11.20128 stated that w.s. of OPs be read as evidence of the complainant.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that the complainant approached OP no.1 for transportations of 59 cartoons of shoes to be delivered to his distributor Vishal Enterprises, Shiva Bazar, Cuttuk, Odisha and booked his consignment on 14.3.2016, vide consignment no.000001021937. Each cartoon contained 20 pairs of shoes and cost of each pair of shoes was Rs.299/-. On 1.4.2016, only 57 cartoons of shoes out of 59 cartoons were delivered. When delivery of less two cartoons were brought to the knowledge of the person delivering the cartoons then that delivery person acknowledged the same and gave in writing that 57 cartoons were delivered to Vishal Enterprises instead of 59 cartoons. The OPs were deficient in service. The complainant approached many times to the OPs regarding compensation i.e. Rs.14,352/- (48x299) of 2 cartoons of shoes but OPs did not heard his genuine request and prayed to allow the complaint with compensation. Learned counsel for complainant relied upon case law cited in 2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 565 case titled as M/s Gati Ltd.10/8-9 Chalti Sadan Old Delhi Gurgaon Road Samalkha New Delhi 37 Versus M/s Synergetic Automation Technologies N-150 Sector 12 Teacher Colony Pratap Vishar Ghaziabad U.P.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the complainant does not come under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as complainant availed the services of the OPs for the commercial purpose of sale of its shoes items. The complainant attached neither booking voucher nor any kind of receipt vide which he have booked 59 cartoons of the shoes items with the complaint and prayed for dismiss of the complaint.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant booked transportation of 59 cartoons of shoes (Ex.C1) with the OPS, out of which only 57 cartoons were delivered to the Vishal Enterprises, Shiva Bazar, Cuttuk, Odisha, vide endorsement (Ex.C2) dated 1.4.2016. On 8.6.2016, regarding short delivery of material, complainant sent a letter (Ex.C3) through Regd. AD. On 26.08.2016 complainant also sent a last Reminder letter (Ex.C4) through speed post. On 17.10.2016 complainant again sent a letter (Ex.C5) through speed post. On 23.12.2016, a legal notice was also sent to the OPs by the complainant through Advocate Vishal Goel. OPs did not reply either of the above mentioned letters and legal notice. In view of Ex.C2, only 57 cartoons got delivered instead of 59 cartoons of shoes. The plea taken by the OPs is only that the complainant does not come under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act, as complainant availed the services of the OPs for the commercial purpose of sale of its shoes items. But OPs did not give any cogent proof in this regard. Hence the plea taken by the OPs is not tenable.

9.             As per the complainant, the cost of the shoes in question is Rs.299/- per pair and it comes out to be Rs.14,352/- in total. This plea was not rebutted by the OPs. The case law produced by the complainant is fully applicable in the present complaint. Hence, we are of the considered view that OPs are deficient in services.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.14,352/- (cost of the shoes) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of delivery of cartoons in question till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,000/-to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and towards litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 04.01.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member