Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/498

M/s Sidh Fabrics Pvt Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ATS Cargo (P)Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C. No.498 of 16.07.2014

                                                          Date of Decision:31/03/2015

M/s Sidh Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. c/o 3125/2, Gali No.5, Mahavir Jain Colony, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana through its Authorized representative/Director Mr.Saurabh Jain s/o Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain. 

                                                                                      Complainant

                             Versus

1.M/s Atis Cargo(P) Ltd., having its Head Office at F-190, 1^st Floor, Dreams, The Mall, LBS Road, Bhandup(West), Mumbai-400078 through its Directors.

2.Mr.Rakesh Nigam, Director, M/s Atis Cargo(P) Ltd., having its Head Office at F-190, 1^st Floor, Dreams, The Mall, LBS Road, Bhandup(West), Mumbai-400078.

3.Mr.Jai Parkash Nigam, Director, M/s Atis Cargo(P) Ltd., having its Head Office at F-190, 1^st Floor, Dreams, The Mall, LBS Road, Bhandup(West), Mumbai-400078.

4.Mr. M.I.Khan s/o Sh.M.H.Khan, r/o 2203, Street No.2, Raju Colony, Tibba Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.Nipun Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

                   OP1 to OP3 ex-parte.

                   Sh.Sandeep Shukla, Adv. for OP4.

                                                ORDER

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by M/s Sidh Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. c/o 3125/2, Gali No.5, Mahavir Jain Colony, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana through its Authorized representative/Director Mr.Saurabh Jain (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s Atis Cargo(P) Ltd., having its Head Office at F-190, 1^st Floor, Dreams, The Mall, LBS Road, Bhandup(West), Mumbai, through its Directors and others(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘OPs’) directing them to return the goods lying with the Ops or to deliver the goods to different consignees as agreed by receiving balance amount of Rs.7700/- besides to pay Rs.2 lakh as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the OP4 on behalf of and being in capacity of an employee of OP1 to OP3 approached the complainant and allured him to send the hosiery material to different concerns in the area of Maharashtra, U.P. and M.P. through OP1 and believing representations of the Ops to be true and having faith on them, the complainant agreed for the supply of the said material through Ops and accordingly the total rate for the same was settled as Rs.17,700/- as per the contract dated 27.7.2013. On 27.7.2013, the complainant handed over/delivered the material/goods to the Ops for delivery at different places and handed over an invoices bearing Nos.153 to 157 dated 27.7.2013 and Ops issued a builties for the same. At the time of contract and at the time of delivery of the goods to the Ops, it was settled that the goods will be delivered within 7-8 days to consignee by the Ops positively. The complainant had paid cash amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Ops and the complainant company was ready to pay the balance amount and is still ready for the same and amount of Rs.10,000/- was duly received by them an signed by them on the payment voucher. The Ops had not delivered the goods to the consignees within the stipulated period as agreed between the parties and even for a month goods were not delivered even after the regular follow up by the complainant with the Ops. The complainant thereafter approached the Ops and sent an email dated 12.8.2013 to the Ops but they failed to reply the same and rather informed the complainant that a dispute arose between the Ops with their employees and they have made assured to the complainant that goods would be delivered to the consignees as soon as possible but again the complainant wrote another reminder through email dated 16.8.2013 to the Ops but with no result. Due to internal dispute between the Ops and their employees and due to several other internal issues of the company, the Ops have failed to deliver the goods to the consignees inspite of the fact that the complainant company continuously approaching the Ops telephonically and via emails to release their goods and to deliver the same to the consignees. After about one month from 12.8.2013, the Ops flatly refused to supply the goods to the concerned consignees. Rather, they started raising demand of Rs.47,000/- from the complainant company. The complainant requested the Ops not to travel beyond the settled rate for total sum of Rs.17,700/- on 27.7.2013 but they are raising illegal demand of Rs.47,000/- and the same is null and void. The goods lying with the Ops are of worth of Rs.1,60,000/-. Out of the total 13 consignments, at the agreed rate of Rs.17,700/-, the Ops had delivered 8 consignments though, the same has been delivered after one month but they failed to deliver to the other 5 consignments to the other concerns due to malafide intentions. Due to such act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has suffered mental tension and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP4 was duly served and appeared through Sh.Sandeep Shukla, Advocate and filed the written statement, whereas, notices of the complaint were sent to OP1 to OP3 through registered post on 24.09.2014, but the same were not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Op1 to OP3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.27.10.2014 by this Forum.

4.                In the written statement filed by the OP4, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant is not covered under Consumer Protection Act and he has no cause of action against the answering OP for filing the present complaint and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the answering OP is the employee of the OP1. It is admitted that deal between the parties was struck and settled at Rs.17,700/- as per contract dated 27.7.2013. It is admitted that on 27.7.2013, material was delivered to the answering OP but otherwise, all other allegations of the complainant denied being wrong and for want of knowledge and at the end, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to prove the case of the complainant adduced evidence by tendering into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21.

6.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP4 had suffered the statement on 11.3.2015 to the effect that the written reply filed by the OP4 may kindly be read as the evidence of the OP4 also and thereafter, closed the evidence of OP4.  

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP4 and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

8.                It is evident that the complainant company had handed over the material/goods to the Ops on 27.7.2013 for delivering the same at different placed and handed over the invoices bearing No.153 to 157 dated 27.7.2013 and the Ops had issued the builties for the same which fact is evident from copies of documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C12. Further, it is evident that requisite payments were made by the complainant for availing the said services of the Ops. However, the Ops refused to deliver/supply the goods/material to the concerned consignees and as such, caused loss to the complainant company. When the complainant requested the Ops to return the goods lying with them, the Ops started claiming Rs.47,000/- from the complainant, whereas, the settlement had already been taken place for the sum of Rs.17,700/- on 27.7.2013. Further, the demand of the Ops to the extent of Rs.47,000/- is not tenable specifically in the light of the statement made by the Op4 in the written statement in Para no.4, in which, it has been admitted by the OP4 to the extent that on 27.7.2013, the material was delivered to the Ops. Under these circumstances, Ops cannot be allowed to wriggle out their own stand. As such, complaint deserves to be allowed and complainant is liable to be compensated.

9.                Hence, by allowing this complaint, we hereby direct the Ops to return the goods of the complainant lying with them in the light of the settlement of Rs.17,700/- on dated 27.7.2013 and further, for causing harassment and sufferance to the complainant, Ops are burdened to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to the record room.

 

    (Babita)            (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

               Member             Member                         President. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:31.03.2015

GurpreetSharma.