DATE OF DISPOSAL: 12.07.2023
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant has transferred amounting of Rs.72,000/- to the OP No.1 on 27.11.2014 through his account of State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur Branch bearing Account Number 211001601000179 of Corporation Bank of Kakinada Branch (A.P.). The complainant deposited said amount to supply Epoxy Paint by the OP no.1 measuring of 90litters (20 liters X 3 nos. of tin packages and 5 liters x 6 nos. tin packages). The said paints were delivered at Complainant place of work by the OP no.1 through OP No.2 & 3 respectively. For such services of transport, the complainant has deposited amount of Rs.430/- in faour of vide delivery note-cum-cash memo No. 472441 on dated 01.12.2014 of O.P.No.3. The Agent of O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.3 has given door delivery of Epoxy paint packages of measuring 50 Liters of paint out of 90 Liters to the Complainant. 20 liters each two tins in good condition and paint packages measuring of 5 liters in two tins in good condition and damaged epoxy paint measuring 20 liters, packages one tin and damaged 5 liters, package each in 4 tins on dated 01.12.23014 by issuing a delivery note of goods to that effect. Due to improper packing of said item of goods for delivery by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant through the O.P.No.2 ANL Parcel serevices, APSRTC Kakinada and O.P.No.3 and due to careless of handling in transportation of said item of good till its delivey to the complainant or due to packing of damaged item of goods in the parcel by the OlP.No.1 malafidely for illegal benefit, transported the same to the complainant through O.P.No.2 and 3 and the complainant had received the purchased booking item of the epoxy paint one tin measuring 20 liters and 4 tins each measuring 5 liters in damaged condition which were empty tins from the O.P.No.3 on 01.12.2014 with proper delivery receipt which value at Rs.36,000/- for which the O.Ps are liable to make payment to the complainant with interest @18% per annum to the said amount from the date of making payment of price of the indented epoxy paint i.e. on 27.11.2014. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to make payment of the market value of the damaged items of good Epoxy paint one tin package measuring of 20 liters and 4 tins package each measuring of 5 liters amounting to sum of Rs.36,000/- with 18% interest per annum , compensation of Rs.50,000/-in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P. No.1 did not appear nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P.No.1 was declared exparte on dated 06.10.2016. The O.P.No.2 & 3 appeared and filed written version through their advocates.
4. The O.P.No.2 & 3 stated that the averments made in the complaint petition are all not true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same which are not specifically admitted herein. The complainant is not a consumer and he is not booked any parcels with the O.P. and he is not paid any service charges to the O.P. and he was no contract between the complainant and O.P.No. 2 & 3 and he is not locus standi to file the said case before the said authorities, hence the petition of the complainant is to be dismissed. The consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the complainant because as per the goods consignment note all the disputes subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction stated by the O.P.Nop.1 on the goods consignment note to that effect. As per the goods consignment note No.08186643 dated 27.11.2014 that the parcels in question were booked by the party Bhaskar (O.P.No.1) which the O.P. No.2 for delivery to M/s Sagar Hatcheries at Ichapuram but not booked by the complainant, hence the complaint to be dismissed. The O.P.No.2 & 3 are not aware of the transactions as per the para 1, 2 and 3 of the petition held between the O.P.Nop.1 and the complainant regarding business transactions. The O.P.No.2 is not aware of the contents of the consignment because they were booked in a sealed and packed condition by the party. The parcels transported from Kakinada to Ichapuram were received by the O.P.No.3 and delivered to M/s Sagar Hatcheries at Ichapuram delivery note cum cash memo No. 396467 dated 1.12.2014 by paying Rs.330/- towards transport charges by the Sagar Hatcheries, Ichapuram and there was no complaint by the party at the time of taking delivery of the consignments. At the time of booking the parcels tshe booking party did not submitted and invoice/bill at the time of booking the consignment because the value column of the G.C. note mentioned as No bill and endorsement was also made by the party on the GC note to the extent. Hence the O.P.No.2 & 3 prayed to dismiss the case.
5. To substantiate their case, both the parties filed their affidavits and written argument in support of their case.
6. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for the complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that, the complainant did not mention the name of the place in complaint and evidence on affidavit where the goods were delivered? And who has received the same? In referring to the consignment note, it was declared that the goods should be delivered at M/s Sagar Hatcheries at Ichapuram. But it was not mentioned in anywhere in the complaint by the complainant that the present complainant and the Sagar Hatcheries of Ichapuram are one and same person. If it was so, the territorial jurisdiction of the present District Forum, Ganjam does not arises under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It deems that, the complainant has suppressed the material information and not approached with clean hand. The documents on which the complainant relied does not corroborative to the complaint of the complainant.
Whereas, the op no.3 adduced in his evidence that, there was no privity of contract in between the complainant and the Op no. 2 & 3. The op no.3 clearly denied in its evidence that, the complainant has neither booked any parcel with op no.2 nor paid any service charges to the ops. Further adduced that, the complainant admitted in his legal notice dtd:22.12.2014 that, the complainant paid transport charges at OP2 ‘s cash counter vide delivery note-cum-cash memo: 472441/dtd:01.12.2014 at Ichapuram, AP and the complainant agreed to take delivery of goods at Ichapuram but not at Berhampur. The Sagar Hatcheries at Ichapuram vide delivry note-cum-cash memo no:396467/dtd:01.12.2014 has received the consignment without any complaint and paid Rs.330/- towards transport charges to op no.3. The complainant also neither mentioned the value of the goods in GC column of the delivery note nor filed the purchase invoice of the paints at the time of booking of parcel.
On the date of hearing, the complainant submitted that the products were delivered at Hillpatna, Berhampur. But on perusal of the complaint and evidence on affidavit and documents of the complainant nowhere it was mentioned that complainant has received the products at Berhampur not at Ichapuram. But the booking consignment note and delivery notes clearly declared that, the products were delivered at Ichapuram in accordance to the T & C of the consignment. Further the complainant submitted, the charges of consigned goods are paid at Berhampur at the time of delivery to the op no.3 whereas the complainant admitted in the complaint and evidence on affidavit that, the transportation charges was paid on 27.11.2014 on the date of booking of the parcel,
In the written submission, the op no.3 has stated that, product was not booked by the complainant but signed in the backside of the consignment. The product was delivered as it is condition to the Sagar Hatcheries at Ichapuram not at Berhampur as per delivery notice dtd:01.12.2014 and received amounting of Rs.330/-.
In view of the above circumstances, the present case hits the territorial jurisdiction of the present Dist. Commission/Forum. The statute laid down in sub-sec. 2 of the Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that, A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2[carries on business or] has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 3[carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 4[carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises the complaint should be filed.
The Commission relied upon the principle laid down in Lekshman Prasad v. Prodigy electronics and another reported in 2008 (2) KLT supplemental 340 (SC) that, ‘the district forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the offer regarding supply of the car was accepted has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer disputes with respect to the supply of the car’.
In view of the above precedent, the Dist. Forum/Commission has lack of territorial jurisdiction to decide the present Consumer Complaint. In the result, the case of the complainant is dismissed. The parties bear their own cost.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for information.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 12.07.2023.
