BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.484 of 2015
Date of Instt. 06.11.2015
Date of Decision: 25.02.2019
Mahajan Sports Center, Shop No.29-30, Mahajan Sports Complex, Basti Nau, Jalandhar-144002. Through its Proprietor.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Mehra Goods Corporation (Regd.), Patel Chowk, Jalandhar Through its Manager.
2. Mehra Goods Corporation (Regd.), Head Office, MGC, Amritsar. Through its Proprietor/Partner/Director.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. K. C. Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is carrying on business of sports goods for earning his livelihood by self-employment in the name of Mahajan Sports. The OPs are engaged in transport business and are providing transport services under the carrier of goods Act. That the complainant availed the services of OPs and got booked two sports goods, vide GR No.9840 dated 12.09.2014 and GR No.9455 dated 23.09.2014 for transporting the same from Jalandhar to Ambala respectively and paid the freight charges as consideration as per bill for Rs.12,726/- and Bill No.341 dated 23.09.2014 for Rs.17,934/- (total Amount Rs.30,660/-) on payment of consideration as transport charges. Both the above said GRS were in the name of self, for taking delivery at destination by the complainant or its representative. The complainant requested the OPs, Branch Office at Ambala as well as OP No.1 to re-book the said transported sports goods from Ambala to Jalandhar. But a period of one year has expired and the present status and conditions of Sports Goods transported have not been made known to the complainant nor these goods have been re-booked from Ambala to Jalandhar till date. The complainant made several inquiries from OPs regarding the fate of sports goods transported re-booked as requested, but they kept mum. All efforts and enquiries made from them were in vain. The complainant has been running from pillar to post, but OPs gave deaf ears to the woe difficulty and hardship of the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 10.09.2015 on OPs through Sh. K. C. Malhotra, Adv, but no reply was given by the OPs till date. In the backdrop of facts stated ante OPs have committed Criminal breach of trust and deficiency in service negligent and unfair trade practice envisaged under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay value of the sports goods for an amount of Rs.30,660/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of booking of the goods up to the date of actual payment to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP because the goods were booked for commercial purpose and further alleged that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and even the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum. The true facts are that the representative of the complainant i.e. purchaser as mentioned in Invoice No.341 dated 12.09.2014 and Invoice No.345 dated 23.09.2014 has already taken the delivery of both the consignments at Ambala City. The answering OPs are not in possession of any sports goods as alleged by the complainant. At the time of taking the delivery of both the consignment at Ambala City, the representative of the complainant i.e. the purchaser has returned the consignor copy of G. R. No.9840 to the answering OP and as the representative of the complainant was not having the consignor, copy of GR No.9455, so, he requested the complainant on telephone to give him assurance regarding the handing over the consignment of GR No.9455 as the consignment copy of the same was with complainant at Jalandhar and accordingly, as per the assurance given by the complainant on telephone that he will handover the consignor copy of GR bearing No.9455 in the office of OPs at Jalandhar, the OPs had handed-over the consignment of G. R. No.9455 also to the representative of the complainant i.e. purchaser. Thus, the representative of the complainant i.e. the purchaser had taken the delivery of both the consignments and further submitted that the complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the answering OP just to extract money from the answering OP and even the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got booked two consignments from Jalandhar to Ambala after making a payment of consideration amount i.e. freight charges, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of the complainant Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
5. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. Precisely, the claim of the complainant is only that he booked two sports goods parcels, vide GR No.9840 dated 12.09.2014 and GR No.9455 dated 23.09.2014 for transporting the same from Jalandhar to Ambala and also paid the freight charges in total Rs.30,660/- and thereafter, the complainant requested the OP No.1 to re-book the said transport goods from Ambala to Jalandhar, but despite elapsing of one year period, the present status and condition of the sports goods transported have not been made known to the complainant, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
7. The case of the complainant has been meeted out by the OP simply taking a plea that both the parcels having GR No.9840 dated 12.09.2014 and GR No.9455 dated 23.09.2014 has already been delivered to the representative of the complainant i.e. purchaser, at Ambala after getting signature of the said representative and produced on the file original GR Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and further alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and in support of this version, the OP placed on the file affidavit Ex.OP/A of Kamal Mohan, Partner of the OP Corporation.
8. Now question remains before us only whether the sports goods two parcels sent by the complainant to Ambala has been virtually delivered or not, regarding that if we go through the GR Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 produced by the OP, then we can say without any hesitation that the goods were received by Manish Traders, if the goods has been already delivered to the representative of the complainant, then the complainant cannot allege or agitate that there is negligence on the part of the OP or deficiency in service. The complainant has not alleged in the affidavit, filed or tendered after filing of the written statement by the OP that the representative of the complainant never took the delivery of the said goods, non-speaking of the complainant on this aspect in his affidavit itself established that there is a silent/indirect admission of the complainant that the goods have been already received by its representative.
9. The above observation is further corroborated from other facts that the goods were booked on 12.09.2014 and 23.09.2014 and as per version of the complainant, he make a request for re-booking of the said goods from Ambala to Jalandhar, the complainant intentionally, willfully and by tactful manner has not mentioned the date of re-booking in the complaint, but the complainant has brought on the file copy of letter Ex.C-4 dated 28.10.2014, whereby make a request for re-book of the said goods from Ambala to Jalandhar. It is very surprised that the complainant remained silent from 12.09.2014 to 28.10.2014, means more than one month and after elapsing of more than one month, the complainant managed to create a document for re-booking of the same article from Ambala to Jalandhar. Why the complainant did not take the delivery on the next or 3rd day from the day of booking because the distance of the Jalandhar to Ambala is not far away and the goods sent from Jalandhar to Ambala approximately reached at the destination on the next day or 3rd day, but why the complainant remained silent for more than one month, which shows that the complainant had already took the delivery of the said articles through its representative at Ambala on the next or 3rd day and thereafter, sent a letter dated 28.10.2014 for re-booking just to create a documentary evidence.
10. Admittedly, in this case, both the parties produced on the file photostat copy of the GR, but on the footing of the GR, it is categorically mentioned that the terms and conditions are elaborated on the reverse side of the GR, but the GR produced by the complainant and the OP having no wording of the terms and conditions on the reverse side because its photostat copy has not been obtained by the parties and accordingly, the copy of the terms and conditions has been got produced from the complainant, which is Mark-X, this Mark is put by the Forum just to identify the document and as per Clause-8 of the terms and conditions, it is clearly mentioned that “the consignor and consignee or endorsee shall be bound to take delivery of the goods within 48 hours of the arrival of the goods at the destination, and in case, the liability of the company as carrier or as bailee shall cease”.
11. In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions agreed between the parties if the delivery is not obtained within 48 hours, then there is no liability of the carrier/OP. So, it is established on the file that the complainant did not take the delivery on the 2nd or 3rd day of the arrival of the goods at the destination Ambala rather sent a letter on 28.10.2014 for re-booking of the said articles, which shows that the complainant has simply made a ground for filing the instant complaint just to get recover compensation and price of the goods, whereas as per documentary evidence, the consignment has been already delivered to the complainant at the destination and therefore, we find there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
12. Further, we have also opt to take into consideration the point raised by the OP regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The OP alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction, but this version of the OP is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the goods were admittedly booked from Jalandhar, if so, then this Forum has a jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
13. In view of the above detailed discussion, we find no substances in the argument of learned counsel for the complainant and therefore, complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. 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
25.02.2019 Member President
