THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 293 of 2015
Date of Institution : 7.5.2015
Date of Decision : 6.10.2015
Dr. Pawan Gupta R/o 68, Green Field, Majitha Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
P.K. Transport Corporation through its prop./Person Overall Incharge, Head office New Kutub Road, Delhi
P.K. Transport Corporation through its Prop./Manager/Person Overall Incharge, having its office Inside Sheran Wala Gate, Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Jeetan Kaher, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh.Rajwinder Pal Singh,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Dr. Pawan Gupta under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased 1450 concrete tiles from Satkar Enterprises ,Delhi. Out of the said tiles complainant used 1030 tiles and remaining 420 tiles were settled to be sent back to Satkar Enterprises, Delhi. The complainant sent a consignment of 420 tiles from Amritsar to Delhi through opposite parties No.1 & 2 vide receipt No. 1529, GR No. 660921 dated 4.2.2015. At the time when the said consignment was given, the tiles were in perfect and merchantable quality and condition but when the tiles reached at Delhi the same were not received by Satkar Enterprises as the tiles had broken due to the negligence on the part of the opposie parties. Complainant requested the opposite parties to settle the claim of such damage, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the amount of tiles i.e. Rs. 25000/- plus carriage charges Rs. 2300/-. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that at the time, when the said consignment of tiles was given, the tiles were in perfect condition. Rather the tiles were in a very bad condition and without any packing which is mandatory for their transportation and they were in loose condition. It was denied that the tiles were not received by the consignee Satkar Enterprises. Rather the tiles were received by the representative of the consignee, Satkar Enterprises and no objection was raised there and then at the spot by the consignee. It was denied that the said breakage of tiles was done due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties . It was submitted that complainant made a wrong demand from the opposite parties for damage of goods. The goods forwarding note clearly lays down the terms and conditions for the carriage of goods and this contract releases carrier from all the liabilities relating to injuries/loss to consignor. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.
4. Opposite parties tendered affidavit of Ashu Sharma ,Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/6.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant sent consignment of 420 tiles from Amritsar to Delhi through opposite parties No.1 & 2 carrier company vide receipt No. 1519 GR No. 660921 dated 4.2.2015 Ex.C-5. The complainant submitted that the tiles were in perfect and merchantable quality/condition. But when the said tiles reached at destination Delhi, through transportation of opposite parties No. 1 & 2, the said tiles were received by the consignee Satkar Enterprises in broken condition. The complainant submitted that the breakage of the tiles occurred due to negligence/carelessness in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 as they did not take proper care as is expected from a prudent transporter/carrier. The complainant made so many requests to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to settle the claim of such damage due to breakage of the tiles, but in vain. The complainant also served legal notice dated 8.4.2015 Ex.C-1 through registered post, postal receipts of which Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 but even then the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant also submitted the retail invoice of the tiles purchased by the complainant Ex.C-4 dated 2.12.2014. Due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2, the complainant suffered loss i.e. amount of tiles Rs. 25000/- ( @ Rs.65/- per tile). Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas case of the opposite parties is that the tiles numbering 420 were in loose condition without any packing and these facts were explained to the consignor. But he insisted that goods be sent to the consignee in that condition. Opposite parties denied that the tiles were in perfect and merchantable quality/condition, as alleged by the complainant. Rather the tiles were in very bad condition and were without packing which is mandatory for transportation. The tiles were in loose condition. The tiles were received by the representative of the consignee Satkar Enterprises and no objection was raised there and then at the spot by the representative of the consignee. The opposite parties further denied that the breakage of tiles occurred due to negligence in service and carelessness on the part of the opposite parties. As the goods were in loose condition, so it is the responsibility of the consignor if the goods are broken in transit, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any damage to the consignor . Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite partis qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant sent 420 tiles of the value of Rs. 25000/- from Amritsar to Delhi through opposite parties, the Carrier company, vide receipt No. 1529 ,GR No. 660921 dated 4.2.2015 Ex.C-7/Ex.OP1,2/2 for delivery to Satkar Enterprises, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and the complainant paid freight charges Rs. 2300/- to the opposite parties vide receipt Ex.C-5 as is also mentioned in receipt Ex.OP1,2/2 issued by the opposite parties. No doubt the tiles were in loose condition but the same were in perfect and good quality/condition as the opposite parties did not give any note on the receipt Ex.C-5 as well as consignee copy Ex.OP1,2/2/Ex.C-7. During transportation the opposite parties did not take proper care as is expected from a prudent transporter/carrier, as a result of which the said tiles reached at destination i.e. at Delhi in broken condition and the same were not delivered to the consignee Satkar Enterprises, Punjabi Bagh,Delhi. The opposite parties submitted that the consignment was delivered to the representative of the consignee and the tiles were received by the representative of the consignee Satkar Enterprises and no objection was raised at the time of delivery by the consignee. But the opposite parties failed to produce on record any evidence to prove that the consignment was delivered to the consignee or the tiles were received by the representative of the consignee , what was the name of that representative, who received the tiles on behalf of the consignee ? No doubt the opposite parties produced on record photo copy of one receipt dated 11.2.2015 Ex.OP1,2/6 to prove that the goods were delivered to the consignee but this receipt does not bear the signatures of any person nor the opposite parties could produce any document or receipt from Satkar Enterprises, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi i.e. consignee to prove that they received the said consignment from the opposite parties at destination i.e. Delhi. Ex.OP1,2/6 is a receipt of payment of Rs. 250/- and not a receipt of delivery of goods to the consignee. Whereas the complainant has written letter to the opposite parties dated 23.2.2015 Ex.C-6 as well as legal notice dated 8.4.2015 Ex.C-1 through registered post which was duly received by the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not furnish any reply to the said legal notice nor submitted any reply to the letter dated 23.2.2015 Ex.C-6 written by the complainant to the opposite parties that the tiles reached at the destination in broken condition and the same were not received by the consignee nor the same were returned to the complainant by the opposite parties . So it stands fully proved on record that the opposite parties did not deliver the consignment to the consignee as the subject matter of consignment i.e. 420 tiles were broken during transportation by the opposite parties as they did not take proper care of the goods as is expected from a prudent transporter/carrier. Resultantly the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 25000/-, the value of the consignment written by the opposite parties itself in their goods forwarding note Ex.OP1,2/2. The complainant has paid freight charges to the tune of Rs. 2300/- to the opposite parties as is evident from the goods forwarding note Ex.OP1,2/2 as well as receipt Ex.C-5 issued by the opposite parties. Opposite parties have failed to deliver the consignment to the consignee at the destination nor returned the same to the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the claim amount of Rs. 25000/- i.e. price of the tiles consigned and the carriage charges of Rs. 2300/- received by the opposite parties from the complainant.
9. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to pay this amount of Rs. 25000/- + Rs. 2300 = Rs. 27300/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. 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.
6.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
