BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.195 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 14.07.2020

      Date of Decision: 23.02.2022

M/s Parag Industries, 61-Dada Colony, Industrial Area, Jalandhar through its Partner Ajay Gulati.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Patel Roadways, S-62, Industrial Area, Near Leader Factory,       Near Taz Hotel, Jalandhar.

2.       M/s Patel Roadways, C/o Mangla Warehouse, Near Bharat Gas          Agency, Opp. Shri Shyam Family Hotel, Chand Nagar Road,   Farukhnagar.

3.       M/s National Agencies, West Karuvellypedy, Kochi, Cochin-   682005 (Kerala)

4.       M/s Jay Hardware’s & Sanitaries, 15/2043, 44, 45, Nazareth,   Moolamkuzhi, Cochin-02 (Kerala)

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)   

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. V. K. Uppal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 to 4 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant deals in sanitary goods and OPs No.2 and 3 are the regular customers of the complainant and used to order the articles, which the complainant supplied through transport i.e. OP No.1. That two consignments were booked from Jalandhar and sent to OPs No.2 & 3 through transport i.e. OP No.1 as follows:

2.                 That the complainant came to know from OP No.1 that fire accident has occurred in its warehouse on 02.06.2019 at 13:43 and a loss of about 14 Crore 88 Lakhs was occurred and the complainant received intimation in this regard through email from OP No.2. That since June 2019, the complainant has not received any payment from OPs No.3 & 4 as well as no compensation has been given to the complainant by OPs No.1 and 2 and the complainant is suffering a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss at the hands of the OPs. The OP No.1 is fully responsible to pay the entire amount of both consignments to the complainant as both the consignments were dispatched through the transport company i.e. OP No.1. That the complainant is regularly requesting OPs to pay the amount of both consignments at the earliest, but all in vain. That by the acts, omission and commission of the complainant and the illegal and wrongful conduct, substantial losses and inconvenience has been caused to the complainant. That the complainant had also served a legal notice upon the OPs on 22.05.2020, but no reply has been received from the OPs yet 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 the actual value of both consignment i.e. Rs.1,32,450/- and Rs.1,14,550/- and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony, inconvenience and pains suffered by the complainant at the hands of the OPs and Rs.50,000/- as costs of complaint.         

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service all the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, all the OPs were  proceeded against exparte.

4.                In order to prove his exparte version, the complainant produced on the file his respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that the complainant sent two consignments to OPs No.3 and 4 by availing the transportation services of OPs No.1 & 2. The complainant came to know that fire accident has occurred in its warehouse on 02.06.2019 and a loss of about 14 Crore 18 Lakhs was occurred and in this regard, the complainant received intimation through email from OP No.2. That since June 2019, the complainant has not received any payment from OPs No.3 & 4 as well as no compensation has been given to the complainant by OPs No.1 and 2. Thus, due to this, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Request has been made to allow the complaint.

7.                Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 are the copies of consignments. Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 copies of Invoices. Ex.C-5 Copy of Legal Notice. Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 are the postal receipts. Copy of letter of intimation issued by OP No.1 to the complainant is Ex.C-10. E-Way Bill Ex.C-11 & Ex.C-12 and Emails Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14, Copies of FIR Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16.

8.                Since the OPs are exparte, therefore no reply and no defence is there to be relied upon and ultimately, the allegations of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged because there is no rebuttal evidence on the file qua the allegations of complainant.

9.                From the documents, it is proved that two consignments were sent by the complainant by availing the services of OP No.1 & 2, which were never delivered to OPs No.3 & 4 due to fire accident. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.1909 of 2004, date of decision 15.09.2011, titled as “Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/s Universal Exports and another”, which is as under:-

                   “Non delivery of goods to by Courier to consignee for   want of sufficient particulars of consignee- it is deficiency of           service – Courier could ascertain correct particulars from           consignor.”

                   In the present case, the consignment was not delivered due to the fire, but the complainant has suffered a lot as he has not been paid the value of the goods either by OPs No.3 & 4 or by OPs No.1 & 2. So as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this is deficiency in service.

10.              It has been held by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in FA No.1219 of 2007, date of decision 05.02.2008, titled as “Shyam Sipoalya Prints Vs. Apsom Infotex Limited”, which is as under:-

                   “Unfair trade practice- Goods- Non-delivery of- Machine        booked at exhibition – Advance paid – Receipt produced in support – Machine not delivered – unfair trade practice proved-       Refund of advance paid with interest directed – dismissal of    complaint by District Forum unjustified – Appeal allowed.”

11.              If we see the case of the complainant in the light of the above discussion coupled with the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and M. P. State Commission, we find that the complaint of the complainant is maintainable and complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed and thus, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of the both consignments i.e. Rs.1,32,450/- and Rs.1,14,550/-, total Rs.2,47,000/- to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.              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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj    23.02.2022         Member                        Member           President