Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/837/2011

M/s Cable Connect Technologies - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s NITCO Roadways - Opp.Party(s)

H.Aneja

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No… 837  of 2011.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 05.08.2011

                                                                                               Date of decision: 22.07.2016

M/s Cable Connect Technologies, E-52, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through authorized signatory Sh. Harcharan Singh Sahni.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                                         Versus

1. M/s NITCO Roadways, Nitco House, Talab Tillo Road, Jammu, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s NITCO Roadways, 200 Quarter, Opp. Paper Mill, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
3. M/s NITCO Roadways, Banglore, through its Manager (Name an address is to be disclosed by respondents No.1 & 2.).
4. M/s NITCO Roadways, Hyderabad, through its Manager (Name and address is to be disclosed by respondents No.1 & 2. ).

                                                                                                                                                                               …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Harvinder Aneja, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Sarabjit Sandhu, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

             

 

ORDER

1                      Complainant firm has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 amended up to date.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant firm is doing the business in the name and style of M/s Cable Connect Technologies which is the only source of his livelihood. The complainant firm is a regular customer of the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) since more than 5 years. The complainant firm purchased material from Banglore, which was booked with OP No.3 on 04.05.2011 and also purchased some material from Hyderabad which was booked with OP No.4 on 08.07.2011. At the time of booking the OPs No.3 & 4 assured the complainant that the goods will be delivered within one week. During this period, the complainant booked orders from the market against the material purchased from Banglore as well as Hyderabad. After one week when the complainant contacted with OP No.2 who is local office of OPs No.3 & 4 and enquired about his consignment, then this fact came to the notice of the complainant that goods which were booked by the complainant were lying in the office of OPs No.3 & 4 till 11.05.2011 and 13.07.2011 respectively. After that complainant received the material from Banglore on 21.05.2011 whereas the same should have reached to the complainant up to 11.05.2011, as such, the same were delivered to the complainant with a delay of 10 days. Similarly material received from the Hyderabad on 19.07.2011 whereas the same should have been reached to the complainant up to 14.07.2011, as such the same were delivered to the complainant with a delay of 5 days. Due to the delay in supply, the complainant suffered huge financial loss as he booked orders from the market. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint and the OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as from the own admission of the complainant, the goods were meant for commercial purpose. Further the services of the carrier had been availed for commercial purpose; Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as per the version of the complainant, one booking was done at Banglore on 04.05.2011 and another booking was done at Hyderabad; no relationship of consumer and service provider exist between the parties as the consignment was booked by M/s Senapathy Symons Insulations BLR from Banglore vide GR No. BLR00384 dated 04.05.2011 and another consignment was booked by M/s M.B. Industries, Hyderabad vide GR No. 1369826 dated 09.07.2011 from Hyderabad. As such, the complainant has no concerned with the OPs; no cause of action; no locus standi; complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of the parties; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; no committed date of delivery was given to the complainant at the time of booking the consignment. The truck carrying the consignment has to pass through various barriers/ check posts which takes time from a such long distance and on merit controverted the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of Har Charan Singh Sahani authorized signatory of the complainant firm as Annexure CW/a and documents such as photo copy of e.mail as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of invoice dated 30.04.2011 amounting to Rs. 11475/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of delivery challan as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of builty BLR-00384 dated 04.05.2011 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of purchase order as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of bill of M.B. Industries as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of builty GR 1369826 dated 09.07.2011 as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of builty as Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on 13.07.2016.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that some materials were booked on 04.05.2011 with the Op No.3 by M/s Senapathy Symons Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Banglore which was delivered to the complainant firm at Yamuna Nagar which is duly evident from the GR/Builty Annexure C-4. Further it is also not disputed that some material was also booked on 09.07.2011 by M/s M.B. Industries, Hyderabad, which was delivered to the complainant firm at Yamuna Nagar which is evident from the copy of Builty/GR Annexure C-8. Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that the OPs No.3 & 4 failed to send the consignment within a week and there was delay of 10 days on the part of OP No.2 and 5 days delay on the part of OP No.4 due to which the complainant firm has suffered financial loss.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs hotly argued at length that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as no committed date of delivery was given to the complainant at the time of booking the consignment. The truck carrying the consignment has to pass through various barriers/check posts which takes time from as such distance i.e. from Banglore and Hyderabad to Yamuna Nagar. Furthermore, the complainant firm does not fall within the definition of consumer as the complainant firm has hired the services for commercial purpose. Even this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Both the consignments were booked at Hyderabad as well as Banglore. Further the learned counsel for the OPs argued that the consignments were booked by M/s Senapathy Symons Insulations, Banglore as well as M/s M.B. Industries, Hyderabad. So, the complainant firm has not hired any services from the OPs.

 9.                    After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the complainant has totally failed to convince this Forum that OPs were duty bound to deliver the consignment within a stipulated period. Further, we have gone through the GR/Builty (Annexure C-4 and C-8) from which it is duly evident that the material was booked by M/s Senapathy Symons Insulations, Banglore and M/s M.B. Industries, Hyderabad not by the complainant firm. Even the complainant has failed to file any cogent evidence to prove that he has suffered any financial loss. Hence, without any documentary evidence, we are unable to hold that the complainant has suffered any financial loss. Moreover, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the material was booked from Banglore and Hyderabad. As such we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 22.07.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.