BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 374 of 2015 Date of Institution: 20.08.2015
Date of Decision: 26.11.2015
Mohinder Loona aged about 64 years son of Sh Thakur Dass, resident of Prem Gali Fazilka, District Fazilka ( M.No. 98151-61465)
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Jaswant Singh son of Karnail Singh residentof Tibbe Wali Dhani Backside Bijli Ghar, Arni Wala Sheikh Subhan Tehsil and Distt. Fazilka Tower of Tata 407 PB05N-9226.
2. Sukhdev Singh driver, care of Jaswant Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of Tibbi Wali Dhani Backside Bijli Ghar, Arni Wala Sheikh Subhan, Tehsil & Distt. Fazilka (Driver of Tata 407 PB05 N-9226)
3. Shri Durga Cantre Union, Near Kanda No.2, New Grain Market, Fazilka through its President.
4. Harbans Lal Kamboj (Sarpanch) President of Shri Durga Canter Union, resident of Village Painchan Wali, Tehsil and District Fazilka.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh Sukhbir Singh Advocate
For opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 : Exparte
C.C.No. 374 of 2015 //2//
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked a canter Tata 407 bearing registration No.PB-05N-9226 through opposite party No.3 for loading the marble from Fazilka to Panchkula on 17.11.2014 for a consideration of Rs.9500/- out of which opposite party No.3 received a sum of Rs.6000/- in advance from the complainant vide receipt No.2673 on 17.11.2014. The canter Tata in question owned by opposite party No.1 and driven by opposite party No.2. It has been pleaded that after booking the above said canter, the complainant loaded the marble from Shafi Marbles Fazilka and Ganpati Marbles Fazilka as well as from Kothi of the complainant vide invoice Nos.7492, bill No.1884 dated 17.11.2014 respectively. Thereafter, in the evening of 17.11.2014, Tata 407 Canter left for Panchkula. Further it has been pleaded that alongwith the above said marble, the complainant has also loaded 8 pieces of wooden sleeper on the above said canter. The complainant has alleged that when on the next day i.e. on 18.11.2014, the canter in question did not reach the house of the complainant at Panchkula till 2. P.M. the complainant contacted the driver of the canter, who told to the complainant that he could not reach Panchkula due to some technical defect occurred in the clutch of the canter and could not reach at Panchkula. After getting the same repaired, the canter started for Panchkula, but near Village Dhanola the tyre of the canter
C.C.No. 374 of 2015 //3//
got punchered and driver further told the complainant that now after getting the repair of puncher of the tyre, left for Panchkula and will reach Panchkula at about 9 to 10 PM. Further it has been pleaded that the a call was received by his son Manu Loona Advocate Panchkula from the driver of the truck that both the tyres of the truck have punchered and as a result of which the tyres have also damaged, so canter was unable to move further. On the next morning, son of the complainant who is practicing as an advocate at Punjab and Haryana High Court left his court work and started journey for village Channo which was 20 KM away from Patiala towards Sangruru side where the above said canter was stopped, on his car alnogwith the labourer. After reaching there, son of the complainant surprised to see that all the tyres of the canter of opposite party No.1 were in good condition and having no defect in the canter. When the complainant asked about this to the driver, then driver told that he will not go beyond this point in any case either his son unload the marble or the driver will leave it here and take away the canter back to Fazilka. Thereafter, the son of the complainant engaged other truck through transport known as Patiala Mini Truck Union, Patiala having registration No.PB-10CC-6342 from Channo to Panchkula on 19.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.5000/- vide bill/GR No.8741 dated 19.11.2014. When the marble was loaded from that canter to present one, complainant surprised to see that there was only five wooden sleepers instead of eight sleepers, which were loaded in the above said previous canter. The cost of the three wooden sleepers was Rs.7500/- The complainant served a legal notices upon the opposite parties, but to no effect. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair
C.C.No. 374 of 2015 //4//
trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, which the complainant spent more as canter and labour charges from Channo to Panchkula, to pay Rs.7500/- as price of three wooden sleepers, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.16,500/- as litigation expenses.
2. The learned counsel for the complainant has closed evidence on behalf of the complainant by tendering into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-21.
3. The opposite party were proceeded against Exparte vide order dated 05.10.2015.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.
5. The version of the complainant is that the complainant booked a canter Tata 407 bearing registration No.PB-05N-9226 through opposite party No.3 for loading the marble from Fazilka to Panchkula on 17.11.2014 for a consideration of Rs.9500/- out of which opposite party No.3 received a sum of Rs.6000/- in advance from the complainant vide receipt No.2673 on 17.11.2014 is duly proved from the receipt as Ex. C-2. The version of the counsel for the complainant is that after booking the above said canter, the complainant loaded the marble from Shafi Marbles Fazilka and Ganpati Marbles Fazilka as well as from Kothi of the complainant vide invoice Nos.7492, bill No.1884 dated 17.11.2014 respectively. The version of the complainant is duly proved as Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-4. The version of the complainant that he has also loaded 8 pieces of wooden sleeper on the
C.C.No. 374 of 2015 //5//
above said truck. To prove his version, the complainant has placed on file copy of affidavit Ex.C1. It has also been pleaded in the complaint by the complainant that in the evening of 17.11.2014, canter left for Panchkula and when on the next day i.e. on 18.11.2014, the canter in question did not reach the house of the complainant at Panchkula till 2. P.M. The complainant contacted the driver of the canter, who told the complainant that he could not reach Panchkula due to some technical defect occurred in the clutch of the canter. After getting the same repaired, the canter started for Panchkula, but near Village Dhanola the tyre of the canter got punchered and driver further told the complainant that now after getting the repair of puncher of the tyre, left for Panchkula and will reach Panchkula at about 9 to 10 PM. The complainant has also pleaded in the complaint that a call was received by his son Manu Loona Advocate Panchkula from the driver of the truck that both the tyres of the truck have punchered and as a result of which the tyres have also damaged, so canter was unable to move further. On the next morning, his son who is practicing as an advocate at Punjab and Haryana High Court left his court work and started journey for village Channo which was 20 KM away from Patiala towards Sangrur side where the above said canter was stopped, on his car alnogwith the labor. After reaching there, son of the complainant surprised to see that all the tyres of the canter of opposite party No.1 were in good condition and having no defect in the canter. When the complainant asked about this to the driver, then driver told that he will not go beyond this point in any case either his son unload the marble or the driver will leave it here and take away the canter back to Fazilka. The version of the complainant is fully
C.C.No. 374 of 2015 //6//
supported by duly sworn affidavit as Ex. C-1. To prove his version that the son of the complainant engaged other truck through transport known as Patiala Mini Truck Union, Patiala having registration No.PB-10CC-6342 from Channo to Panchkula on 19.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.5000/- vide bill/GR No.8741 dated 19.11.2014 has placed on record photo copy of said bill as Ex. C-5. To prove his version that the complainant served a legal notices upon the opposite parties and documents as Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-10. The complainant has also placed on file copy of photograph as Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-21 from which it is proved the version of the complainant is that he lodged 8 sleeper on the canter, which he hired from Durga Canter Union, when the marble was loaded from that canter to present one, complainant surprised to see that there was only five wooden sleepers instead of eight sleepers, which were loaded in the above said previous canter. The cost of the three wooden sleepers was Rs.7500/-. On the other hand, the opposite arties have also preferred to obstain from the proceedings of the present complaint and contest the complaint of the complainant, which also amounts to implied admission of the unrebutted and unchallenged allegations of the complainant. The opposite parties are guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.18,500/- to the complainant which the complainant spent Rs.6000/- as canter charges from Channo to Panchkula and Rs.5000/- as laborer charges and the cost of three sleeper was Rs.7500. This order is
C.C.No. 374 of 2015 //7//
directed to be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy. File be consigned to the record room
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
26.11.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
