BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                                        Complaint Case No : 576 of 2010

                                        Date of Institution  :  17.09.2010

                                       Date of Decision    :  22.12.2010

Sh.Tejinder Singh, Proprietor of M/s Neena Corockeries, D-148, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Special Power of Attorney Mr.Ramandeep Singh,

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     M/s TCI XPS Cargo through its Chief Executive Officer, TCI, 69, Industrial Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana.

2]     M/s XPS Cargo through its Area Manager, Plot No.21, Transport Area, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL           PRESIDING MEBER

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

Argued by:         Sh.Ajay Mehra, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Maninder Arora, Adv. for OPs.

PER SHRI RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   Briefly stated, the complainant company on 28.1.2010 booked the material of various crockery items worth Rs.64,984/- through OP No.2 for its delivery to “M/s Chef Xincai, R.B.Centre Kadri, Nanthoor Road, Mangalore.”.  All the material was properly packed in 9 packages in sturdy cartons and at the time of booking, OP-2 thoroughly checked the sturdiness of the cartons. As per condition, the goods were to be delivered to the consignee at Mangalore within a period of 7 days but the OPs failed to deliver it within the said stipulated time.  Many correspondences were exchanged between the complainant and OPs with regard to delivery of the consignment in response thereof, the OP informed that the consignee has refused to accept the delivery as the material was open. It is averred that the consignee refused to accept the consignment as it was not only opened but also in damaged condition.  It is also averred that the complainant was put to serious hardship and loss by reason of gross negligence and carelessness on the part of OPs.  It is further averred that as the damaged consignment occurred in the custody of OPs, therefore, they are liable to make the loss good as well as pay compensation. This matter was taken up with OPs but they did not pay any heed. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the act of OPs as gross deficiency in service due to which the complainant had to suffer a lot of harassment and financial loss.

2]             OPs filed joint reply and admitted the booking of the consignment.  It is stated that complainant being the consigner did not disclose the correct particulars of the material, which was handed over to the OPs.  It is denied that the consignment was promised to be delivered within 7 days to the consignee.   It is submitted that the consignment was seized by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sales Tax, Check Post, Dhulkhad, NS-13, Taluq INDI, Distt. Bijapur on 6.2.2010 and the same was released after much efforts by OP Company on 16.3.2010 and thereafter consignment reached the destination on 20.3.2010.  The consignment reached to the consignee on 31.3.2010 but it refused to take its delivery even though there were no damages and only the consignment was opened that too by the officials of the Sales Tax Check Post, Dhulkhad and thus, there was no negligence or delay on the part of OP Company.   The refusal by the consignee was also intimated to the complainant.  Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

5]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]             The contention of the complainant is that their crockery material worth Rs.64,984/- booked through OP No.2 for its delivery within 7 days to “M/s Chef Xincai, R.B.Centre Kadri, Nanthoor Road, Mangalore.” was not done by the OPs and more so, the material was damaged by them, due to which they suffered huge financial loss as well as harassment.

6]             On the other hand, the contention of OPs is that the situation & circumstances were beyond their control.  The material/consignment was seized by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sales Tax, Check Post, Dhulkhad, NS-13, Taluq INDI, Distt. Bijapur on 6.2.2010. The same was released after much effort on 16.3.2010.  Then, it reached to the consignee on 31.3.2010, who refused to the delivery though there was no damage.  It is also contended that the consignment was opened by the officials of the Sales Tax Check Post, Dhulkhad and not by the OPs and therefore, there was no deficiency or negligence on the part or OPs.

7]             The consignment was seized and checked by a government department/officer i.e. Commercial Tax Officer, Sales Tax, Check Post, Dhulkhad, NS-13, Taluq INDI, Distt. Bijapur, which certainly was not under the control of OPs.  The OPs have to follow the government rules and regulations.  The necessary intimation of seizure of consignment was sent to the complainant by the OPs.  Therefore, under these set of circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no fault on the part of OPs in seizure of the consignment or opening of its boxes as it was done by a government department/officer at check -post and this situation it was totally beyond the control of OPs.   The OPs cannot be blamed for any delay in delivery of the consignment or non-acceptance of consignment by the consignee.  Therefore, we do not find any deficiency on the part of OPs.

8]             In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complaint is meritless.  The same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.