BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No. 155 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 15.04.2021

      Date of Decision: 01.02.2022

Shri Amrit Paul, Proprietor M/s Bihari Lal Amrit Paul, 25 New Prem Nagar Sodal Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Roadlinks Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Upkar Nagar, Bhatha Road           Near Holy Heart School, Jalandhar Through Authorized       Representative/Manager. Shri Sourav.

2.       Shri Sourav, Authorized Representative/Manager. M/s Roadlinks      Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Upkar Nagar, Bhatha Road Near Holy         Heart School, Jalandhar

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                    Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Nakul Kohli, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the OPs deals in the transportation services and OP No.2 is the authorized representative of OP No.1 and OP No.2 is responsible for all the affairs of the OP No.1. That the complainant is sole proprietor of M/s Bihari Lal Amrit Paul and deals in the bakery products. Complainant used to send the raw material/bakery products by use of transportations services of OPs. That complainant send the bakery products/raw material to M/s Divyam Traders, H. No.33668, Gali No.21, Partap Nagar, Bathinda Punjab against bill No.3877 dated 17.12.2020 of Rs.21,103/- by availed the transportation services of OPs. It was represented by OP No.2 that he is the authorized representative of OP No.1 and further told that the bakery product/raw material would be sent through said company, entirely at his risk and responsibilities. That complainant booked the raw material/bakery products vide receipt No./Bilty No./Airway Bill No.810040947 dated 17.12.2020 from OPs and OPs assured to deliver the raw material/bakery products to the addressee within time. In good faith, complainant handed over the packets containing the raw material/bakery products to OPs. In this manner, OPs, are service provider while complainant is the consumer. The importance of the raw material/bakery products was disclosed to OPs for the speedy movement of the parcel. Complainant also handed over the bill to the OPs. The number and amount of the bill also mentioned on the receipt/bilty/airway bill by OPs as such OPs was well aware of the value of the booked material. That after few days as informed by the addressee, the said raw material/bakery products not reached at destination nor has been received by the addressee. The raw material/bakery products in question were urgent need of the addressee. That due to non delivery of the bakery products/raw material, complainant suffered huge financial loss. Complainant approached to OPs, through calls and WhatsApp, but OPs have been putting off complainant on the pretext that the bakery products/raw material are in route. OPs have been falsely told complainant that the parcel is in route. On verification through online tracking of the website of OPs, it revealed that there is no record update after 21.12.2020. In this manner, OPs, have been making false representation. When the complainant asked from the OPs regarding status of the parcel, they linger on the matter on the one pretext and other. At the time of booking of parcel, bill for the value of the bakery products/raw material was also handed over to opposite parties for Rs.21,103/- and the bakery products/raw material was accompanied with the bill issue by complainant to be handed over to the addressee for approval and further consideration . In fact, OPs, have misappropriated the bakery products/raw material which was exclusive and precious and caused undue huge financial loss to complainant and thus have cheated complainant and also played a fraud with complainant. Due to this act of OPs, the relation of complainant and addressee become sustained and complainant suffered huge financial loss due to this. The act of opposite parties are clear cut unfair trade practice, result of deficiency and negligence in service, which has caused great mental tension, agony, harassment, undue inconvenience, loss of business 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 value of the bakery products/raw material of Rs.21,103/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of bill till realization of amount and further OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages on account of unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service and further OPs be directed to pay the cost of the present complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but both the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

3.                In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file his respective evidence.

4.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file as well as documents very minutely.

5.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant sent raw material/bakery products to M/s Divyam Traders, Bathinda by availing the transportation services of OPs. The raw material/bakery products were sent on 17.12.2020, but the same was never delivered to M/s Divyam Traders till the filing of the complaint. Even the tracking record shows that till 21.12.2020, the goods/raw material was in transit, but after that, there was no record available and it was not showing the location, thus, there is a deficiency in services. There is unfair trade practice as well as negligence on behalf of the OPs, creating trauma, mental agony, tension, harassment, inconvenience, loss of money and time, loss of business and profit to the complainant. Request has been made to allow the complaint.

6.                Ex.C-1 is the invoice issued by Bihari Lal Amrit Paul Firm, which is allegedly proprietorship firm dated 17.12.2020 sending Frosters Sugar/Icing Sheets-A4 and Dark Compound 15 500 GM to M/s Divyam Traders. Ex.C-2 is Bilty/Receipt of OPs i.e. Roadlinks Logistics Pvt. Ltd. showing the consignment as mentioned in the Invoice. Ex.C-2 also bears the Invoice No.3877, which is as per Ex.C-1 and Invoice value Rs.21,103/- which is also as per Ex.C-1. This shows that services of Roadlinks were availed by the complainant on 17.12.2020 for sending the raw material to M/s Divyam Traders. Ex.C-3 is the tracking record showing the tracking dated 21.12.2020 in transit. After that nothing is there. Ex.C-4 is the notice sent to the OPs. Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 are the postal receipts showing that the notice was issued by the complainant.

7.                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.

8.                From the documents, it is proved that the raw material/bakery products were sent by the complainant by availing the services of OPs, which were never delivered. This shows the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. 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, nothing was missing, but despite that the consignment was not delivered. So as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this is deficiency in service.

9.                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.”

10.              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 are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of the bakery products/raw material of Rs.21,103/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of bill, till realization 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.

11.              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     

01.02.2022         Member                          Member           President