Versus
- M/s. J.S.K. Logistics through its Partner/Proprietor/Director, office at E-71, Industrial Area, Jalandhar-144004.
-
M/s. J.S.K. Logistics, 79-A, Industrial Area-A, adjoining Transport Nagar, Ludhiana-141003.
- Kailash Sharma, Partner/Director M/s. J.S.K. Logistics, E-71, Industrial Area, Jalandhar-144004.
- Jasvir Singh, Partner/Director M/s. J.S.K. Logistics, E-71, Industrial Area, Jalandhar-144004.
....Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is doing business of manufacture and sale of hardware goods & cycle parts for earning livelihood for himself and his family at a small scale and is the sole proprietor of the said firm. Besides, the opposite parties have been doing business of transporting goods and have their office at Jalandhar, Ludhiana and New Delhi. They have been regularly transporting the goods of the complainant from time to time to various destinations in India. The complainant stated that he booked the goods/consignment with Ludhiana office of opposite parties on 28.10.2021 and they issued one GR No.1040040450 dated 28.10.2021. The booked goods were to be delivered to M/s. Mohan Metal Industries, New Delhi. The complainant booked five bags of door springs to be delivered to his said client/customer at New Delhi and raised invoice No.163 dated 28.10.2021 having value of Rs.38,940/- which were to be delivered by the opposite parties. The complainant handed over five bags of goods with Ludhiana office of opposite parties on 28.10.2021 for delivery to M/s Mohan Metal Industries, New Delhi. The complainant has been following up with opposite parties regularly to know status of goods sent through the opposite parties. However, the client/customer of the complainant at New Delhi has been calling upon the complainant that goods have not been delivered to them till now. The complainant called upon the Delhi office of opposite parties to trace the status of the goods but they have failed to provide any information about the goods of the complainant. The complainant verbally and telephonically gave reminders to opposite party to deliver the goods or alternatively to return the goods to the complainant but in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the opposite parties have failed to disclose the status of goods worth Rs.38,940/- which were handed over to the opposite parties to the complainant for delivery at New Delhi. The complainant served legal notice dated 20.11.2021 upon the opposite parties either to return the goods or to pay Rs.38,940/- to the complainant as price of goods but no reply was given by the opposite parties. The complainant has to run from pillar to post in order to redress his grievance but the opposite parties have not redressed his grievance which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the complainant has sought direction to the opposite parties either to return the goods worth Rs.38,940/- or to pay the amount of Rs.38,940/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000- besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties through registered post on 17.06.2022 but the opposite parties did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.09.2022.
3. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint and also submitted affidavit Ex. CB of Sh.Sanjay Gulati, Proprietor of M/s. Mohan Metal Industries, New Delhi. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of consignee copy having invoice No.163 dated 28.10.2021, Ex. C2 is the copy of tax invoice dated 28.10.2021 of Rs.38,940/-, Ex. C3 is the legal notice dated 20.11.2021, Ex. C4 to Ex. C8 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C9 is the consignee copy having invoice No.163 dated 28.10.2021, Ex. C10 is the copy of Aadhar car of Sanjay Gulati, Ex. C11 is the copy of Form GST REG-06 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavits and annexed documents submitted by the complainant.
5. The controversy in this case essentially revolves around the facts that the complainant lawfully entrusted to the opposite parties five bags of goods i.e. door springs having a value of Rs.38,940/- which were sold and destined to be delivered to M/s. Mohan Metal Industries, New Delhi vide invoice No.163 dated 28.10.2021 Ex. C2. The opposite parties generated one GR dated 28.10.2021 Ex. C1 for its onward delivery to the consignee. The goods never reached to its destination. According to the complainant, he repeatedly approached the opposite parties to verify the status of delivery or alternatively pay the price of the goods but the opposite parties did not respond favourably. Even the legal notice dated 20.11.2021 Ex. C3 failed to yield the desired results. In order to substantiate its case of non-delivery of goods, the complainant has also placed affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Gulati, Proprietor of M/s. Mohan Metal Industries, New Delhi (consignee) in which he has clearly stated that the opposite parties have not delivered the goods sent to him by the complainant till date. The complainant has also produced the consignee copy Ex. C9 on the record. All this evidence clearly proves that the goods were not delivered by the opposite parties to the consignee, which also amounts to deficiency in service.
6. The counsel for the complainant has contended that the legal notice dated 20.11.2021 Ex. C3 was sent to the4 opposite parties and the postal receipts in this regard are Ex. C4 to Ex. C8. The notice may be treated as substantial compliance of the Section 10 of the Carriage Act. He also placed reliance upon M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs M/s. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. in 2007 AIR (SCW) 1527 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the goods entrusted to common carrier, loss of goods or injury to goods or non-delivery of goods, entrusted to a common carrier for carriage would amount to a deficiency of service and complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it has to be held that the complainant company is covered under the definition of consumer. In the given facts and circumstances, the case of the complainant succeeds and it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.38,940/- to the complainant along with composite compensation of Rs.7500/-.
7. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is exparte allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the price of goods i.e. Rs.48,940/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
8. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:03.02.2023.
Gobind Ram.
Tarsem Lal Garg Vs M/s. J.S.K. Logistics CC/22/64
Present: Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate for complainant.
OPs exparte.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is exparte allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the price of goods i.e. Rs.48,940/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:03.02.2023.
Gobind Ram.
