DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 290 of 21-06-2012
Decided on 21-09-2012
Manohar Arora, aged about 55 years s/o Sawan Ram Arora Proprietor, Manu Sons # 2090, Near Canara Bank, The Mall, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
M/s Max Pacific Logistics Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor/ Partner/Manager/Director, SCO 324, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.
M/s Max Pacific Logistics Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Corporate Office, # L-181, Gali No.7, Second Floor, Mahilpur, Delhi.
M/s Max Pacific Logistics Pvt. Ltd., through its Incharge/Manager, # 114, North Estate, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.J.D Nayyar, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had availed the services of the opposite parties and had booked a consignment with the opposite parties vide POD No.01077121 dated 1.11.2011 for being delivered at Chandigarh. The said consignment was not delivered at Chandigarh and the complainant had been informed by the opposite party No.3 that the same has come back to Bathinda. Since the same was not delivered at Chandigarh as such the same had been sent back to Bathinda for being delivered to the complainant vide POD No.01081971 dated 14.11.2011. The declared value as per the POD was Rs.2,49,157/-. The complainant had paid Rs.710/- as the charges for the same. It was the responsibility of the opposite parties to handle the said consignment in a proper manner and to deliver the same at the destination address or return back to the complainant in proper and safe condition. When the complainant went to collect the said consignment from the opposite parties office he was given a short delivery of the consignment and they had issued a short delivery certificate for 6 pieces amounting to Rs.20,994/- and all the details of that had been mentioned on the said certificate at the back of the consignment POD. Admittedly there has been a short delivery of 6 pieces amounting to Rs.20,994/- as such the complainant is legally entitled to recover this amount from the opposite parties. The complainant has already made a demand of this amount from the opposite parties vide notice dated 28.11.2011 but to no avail. Thereafter the complainant had got issued legal notice dated 1.6.2012 to the opposite parties but no reply has been given. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.20,994/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this forum have filed their joint written statement and admitted that the material booked vide POD No.01077121 dated 1.11.2011 was to be delivered at Chandigarh. The true facts are that the consignee had refused to pay the service charges amount of the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.710/- and they left with no option, but to return back the goods to the consigner/complainant. As per the terms and conditions laid down on the back of POD itself, the goods receipt is on onwer's risk. The opposite parties always handle every consignment with due care and in a proper manner. The consignment was delivered back to the complainant as it is as was handed over to the opposite parties by him at the time of booking for sending the same to Chandigarh. At the time of booking of material, the complainant never got counted the containers in the boxes. Rather the containers were booked as it is as were handed over to the opposite parties. Even on the POD it is nowhere mentioned that each box contains such number of boxes. The opposite parties or any it's authorized person never issued any short delivery note/certificate to the complainant. The alleged short delivery certificate is not issued by the opposite parties. Moreover as per terms and conditions of the POD, the goods receipt is on owner's risk, so question of issuing the short delivery certificate by the opposite parties does not arise at all. The material is booked at owner's risk and the complainant never chose to get the material insured. The opposite parties further pleaded that there was no short delivery rather the consignment was delivered back to the complainant as it is as it was handed over to the opposite parties by him at the time of booking for sending the same to Chandigarh. The demand raised by the complainant vide the impugned notice dated 1.6.2012 is illegal and cannot met with. The notice was duly replied on 8.6.2012.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant had booked a consignment with the opposite parties vide POD No.01077121 dated 1.11.2011 to be delivered at Chandigarh. The said consignment was not delivered at Chandigarh and the complainant had been informed by the opposite party No.3 that it has come back to Bathinda. As it was not delivered at Chandigarh and sent back to Bathinda, it was delivered to the complainant vide POD No.01081971 dated 14.11.2011. The declared value of POD was Rs.2,49,157/-. The complainant further submitted that when he collected the said consignment from the opposite parties office he was given a short delivery of the consignment and they had issued a short delivery certificate for 6 pieces amounting to Rs.20,994/- and all the details have been mentioned in the said certificate duly issued by their office at the back of the consignment POD. The complainant has demanded for the amount of Rs.20,994/- vide notice dated 28.11.2011 but the opposite parties have failed to give reply of it. The complainant had also got issued a legal notice dated 1.6.2012.
6. The submissions of the opposite parties are that the materials booked vide POD No.01077121 dated 1.11.2011 was to be delivered at Chandigarh but the consignee had refused to pay the service charges amount to the tune of Rs.710/- and they left with no option, but to return back the goods to the consigner/complainant. As per the terms and conditions laid down on the back of POD itself, the goods receipt is on onwer's risk. The opposite parties always handle every consignment with due care and in a proper manner. The consignment was delivered back to the complainant as it was handed over to the opposite parties by the complainant at the time of booking for sending the same to Chandigarh. At the time of booking of said material, the complainant never got counted the containers in the boxes, these were booked as these were handed over to the opposite parties. Even on the POD it was nowhere mentioned that each box contains such number of boxes. The opposite parties or any it's authorized person never issued any short delivery note/certificate to the complainant. The short delivery certificate is not issued by the opposite parties. The material of the complainant was not insured. The consignment was delivered back to the complainant as it was handed over to the opposite parties by him at the time of booking for sending the same to Chandigarh.
7. A perusal of receipt dated 14.11.2011 vide Ex.C2 shows that the weight of the consignment was 120 Kg and the amount of Rs.710/- was paid and the declared value was Rs.249157/-. The complainant has produced the short delivery note which was issued by the opposite parties vide Ex.C3. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had booked the consignment but the consignee has failed to receive the consignment as he refused to pay Rs.710/- of service charges as such the said consignment was delivered back to the complainant. The short delivery note is neither given on the letter pad nor duly stamped by the authorized person. The addressee has refused to take the consignment as such the consignment was delivered back to the complainant. The complainant has failed to place on file any iota of evidence to show that the consignee/addressee was ready to accept the consignment and to pay Rs.710/- as service charges and the opposite parties have intentionally not delivered the consignment to the addressee/consignee.
8. The authorities relied upon by the counsel of the opposite parties have distinguishable facts and circumstances.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
21-09-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
