Punjab

Amritsar

CC/16/299

Shiben Kishen Salman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Malwa Golden Transport Co. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
SCO 100, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue
Amritsar
Punjab
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/299
 
1. Shiben Kishen Salman
92, Kamla Devi Avenue, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar
Amritsar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Malwa Golden Transport Co.
Pawan Road Line, Sikandar Pura Mohalla, Opp Subhash Mittal Printing Press, Bathinda, Punjab
Bathinda
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Anoop Lal Sharma PRESIDING MEMBER
  Rachna Arora MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 17 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.

1.       Sh.Shiben Kishen Salman has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that on 26.5.2016 consignor Garg Goja booked Hero Maestro (make 03/2013) bearing vehicle RC No.AP2B DT 6469 from Bhatinda through M/s.Malwa Golden Transport Company, Bathinda for delivery at Amritsar through GR No.F46681 dated 26.5.2016 and the consignee being the complainant. The delivery of the consignment i.e. scooter as per the GR was supposed to ake place at jain Bharat Transporter (Prop.New Bharat Transport Operations) Amritsar which is mentioned on GR alongwith the mobile number of the owner/ partner/ proprietor. As the distance between Amritsar and Bathinda is less than 200 KM, since 27th May, the complainant kept on enquiring from M/s.Malwa Golden Transport Company as well as Jain Bharat Transport, Amritsar regarding the arrival of scooter to its destination. However, the complainant was informed by both the transporters that consignment (scooter) has not reached to Amritsar. Again in the evening of 30th May, 2016 the complainant called on M/s.Malwa Golden Transport Company to know the status of the scooter, whether it has reached Amritsar for delivery. However, the agent of M/s.Malwa Golden Transport Company Mr.Pardeep informed the complainant over phone that the scooter in question has got totally damaged due to fire while in transit in the carrier (Tata vehicle Model 207) in which it was being transported  from Bhatinda to Amritsar. On 31st of May, the complainant visited the office of Jain Bharat Transport to know the exact damage of the scooter. However, the staff member told the complainant that the consignment has not reached to Amritsar and was confirmed by Mr.Ramesh Jain, owner/ proprietor of Jain Bharat as well as over phone. In between the complainant remained in constant touch with M/s.Malwa Golden Transport Company that they have not been able to deliver the scooter booked and hence should compensate him adequately for the loss suffered due to their negligence and carelessness, but they did not give any positive response. Thereafter, the representative of M/s.Malwa Golden Transport Company again and again lingered on the matter for the settlement of the claim of the complainant and ultimately, refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to compensate the complainant by paying the sum of Rs.60000/- which includes the cost of scooter, taxes paid for  registration of vehicle, whole time tax paid towards the road tax, cost of helmet and rain coat placed inside the dickey/ storage cabinet, freight paid in advance towards the transportation charges of scooter from Bhatinda to Amritsar.

b)      The complainant got the scooter consigned from Bhatinda to Amritsar for his personal conveyance and in order to commute within city for daily routine house hold work. In absence of the scooter, the complainant was compelled to shell out the sum of Rs.200/- on daily basis for local conveyance, so he may be granted relief @ Rs.200/- per day on account of conveyance allowance with effect from 1.5.2016 till the date of settlement/ relief granted.

c)       To pay compensation of Rs.20000/- on account of mental agony, pain and unnecessary harassment suffered by the complainant at the hands of the Opposite Parties.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 ,2 & 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The negotiation for transportation of vehicle, the agreement on terms and conditions, agreement on freight, etc. were held at Bhatinda. The payment for transportation of the said motor cycle was also made at Bhatinda to Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the consumer complaint falls at Bathinda only. The motor cycle for transportation to Amritsar got damaged, on the way due to fire resulting from sparks emanating from the fields, burning the residue after harvesting the wheat crop. The spark fell on the truck and the truck got fire and the goods in the truck got damaged. These facts have been clearly stated in the police investigation report. So, it is an act of the God beyond the human power and control. Therefore, the replying Opposite Party are not liable for act of God.  The motor cycle is the subject matter of the complaint must have been insured and the complainant must have received the claim amount. If the vehicle was not insured, it is violation of section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act for which the complainant is liable himself. On merits, it is admitted that the scooter booked by Opposite Party No.1 did not reach Amritsar. As the motor cycle booked for transportation was of 2013 model, the claim for Rs.60000/- exceeds even the original purchase price and is exorbitant. It is wrong and denied that the helmet and rain coat were also booked by the Opposite Party No.1 with motor cycle. Other charges claimed, including taxes and registration fee etc, are also not maintainable. The relief claim by the claimant is excessive and exorbitant. Even the purchase price of the motor cycle model 2013 was of much less value than Rs.60000/- as per the bill supplied by the complainant. After allowing depreciation value, the market value of the said motor cycle comes down to Rs.20000/- which was in scrap condition and not in running condition. Other items like helmet, rain coat were never booked by the Opposite Party and nothing is payable for these items and other reliefs  claimed by the complainant are baseless and not tenable and not payable.    Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No.4 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  separate written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The negotiation for transportation of vehicle, the agreement on terms and conditions, agreement on freight, etc. were held at Bhatinda. The payment for transportation of the said motor cycle was also made at Bhatinda to Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the consumer complaint falls at Bathinda only. Almost the Opposite Party No.4 took the same and similar pleas as taken by Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3 in their separate written version and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C8  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Pardeep Ex.OP1,2,3/1 alongwith copy of documents Ex.OP1,2,3/2. Similarly, Opposite Party No.4 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar Jain Ex.OP4/1  and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and stated that after the transportation of the vehicle in question by making transportation charges, it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties  to hand over the consignment to its destination in safe custody. But on the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that  firstly  this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The negotiation for transportation of vehicle, the agreement on terms and conditions, agreement on freight, etc. were held at Bhatinda. The payment for transportation of the said motor cycle was also made at Bhatinda to Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the consumer complaint falls at Bathinda only. The motor cycle for transportation to Amritsar got damaged, on the way due to fire resulting from sparks emanating from the fields, burning the residue after harvesting the wheat crop. The spark fell on the truck and the truck got fire and the goods in the truck got damaged. These facts have been clearly stated in the police investigation report. So, it is an act of the God beyond the human power and control. Therefore, the replying Opposite Party are not liable for act of God.  The motor cycle is the subject matter of the complaint must have been insured and the complainant must have received the claim amount. If the vehicle was not insured, it is violation of section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act for which the complainant is liable himself. On the other hand, the complainant has produced the ruling titled as Patel Roadways Limited Vs. Birla Yamaha Limited (2000 (4) SCC 91,  vide which Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that 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, therefore, the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable. In view of the supra ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the compensation on account of loss to the vehicle in question.

8.       In his complaint, the complainant has also sought  relief regarding the other items such like cost of helmet and rain coat placed inside the dickey/ storage cabinet, freight paid in advance towards the transportation charges of scooter from Bhatinda to Amritsar, but there is no mention regarding these items in the GR Ex.C2 himself produced by the complainant on the file. So, in our view, the complainant is not entitled to any amount regarding the loss, if any, of these items.

9.       The complainant has sought relief of compensation of Rs.60000/- regarding the loss of vehicle as well as other items, but on the other hand, the Opposite Parties  in their written version has mentioned that     after allowing depreciation value, the market value of the said motor cycle comes down to Rs.20000/- which was in scrap condition and not in running condition. Other items like helmet, rain coat were never booked by the Opposite Party and nothing is payable for these items and other reliefs  claimed by the complainant are baseless and not tenable and not payable. So, in our considered view, it will be justifiable if we allow the tentative loss to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

10.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct all the Opposite Parties  jointly and severally and co-extensively to make the payment of Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of vehicle to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- from the Opposite Parties  while a sum of Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon the Opposite Parties on account of litigation expenses and the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

 
 
[ Anoop Lal Sharma]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[ Rachna Arora]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.