Case No. CC/ 39/2020
FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Sudeb Mitra, President:-
The epitome of the complaint case reflects that the complt., for self-employment had been dealing in paddy and his practice was to purchase paddy from the local farmers and to sell the same to various rice mills.
This is forthcoming from the complaint that M/S Baba Agro Food Limited “Rice Mill”, situated at Bandherya, Ranchi, intended to purchase paddy from the complt. and on settlement in between the complt. and the intending purchaser of paddy, as referred above, it was determined that the complt. would deliver paddy to the intending purchaser, through transport, at Ranchi and accordingly the complt. contracted with the O.P., proprietor of Mallick Transport, to send 24830 quintals of paddy from the business place of the complt. to the intending purchaser at Bandherya i.e. at the ‘Rice Mill’ of the intending purchaser.
It is the complt’s case that the O.P. had decided to transport the said quantity of paddy from the complt’s place of business to the business place of the intending purchaser at a consideration price of Rs.800/- per tonne and the O.P. had taken Rs.12,000/- in advance from the complainant, as transport cost on 22.07.2020 and issued receipt to the Complt.
The Complt. submit that on 22.07.2020, the O.P. came to the complt’s business place, and loaded 24830 quintals of paddy in a truck bearing no JH01CC-7608, from the complt’s business place and assured the complt. that the transport of such paddy to it’s destination at Bandherya, Ranchi by the truck will be done by 27.07.2020.
Later the complt. could come to know from M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd. i.e. the intending purchaser that they hadn’t received the paddy from the O.P.
As a result when the complt. asked the O.P., about the reason of not sending the paddy to M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd. at Bandherya, Ranchi, the O.P. remained non- responsive thoroughly by avoiding to provide satisfactory answer/information.
The complt’s sent lawyer’s letter dtd. 24.08.2020, was received by the O.P., who was asked by the complt’s Ld. Counsel to pay up the value of the paddy of Rs- 4,54,637/- since the complt’s paddy was taken by the O.P. for transportation to M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd.,Bhandherya, Bandhtoli, Ranchi and since the same was not received by the M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd., but the O.P. hadn’t responded or paid back Rs- 4,54,637/- (price of the paddy transported by the O.P’s transport system vide Lorry no JH01CC-7608) & Rs- 12,000/- received by the O.P. from the complt. in advance for transportation purpose.
Finding no other solution, the complt. has filed this complaint, seeking reliefs as stated in the prayer portion of the complaint of this case.
The case record reveals adequately that the O.P. was duly summoned and Postal Receipt and relevant Postal Track report and Postal Authority’s report dtd. 11.01.2021 substantiate the same and as inspite of getting scopes, the O.P. hasn’t contested in this complaint case, this complaint case has been fixed to be heard exparte and subsequently it was heard exparte.
The complt. has filed ex-in-chief on affidavit in support of his complaint, cash Memo dtd. 22.07.2020 of Rs- 4,54,637/- i.e. the price of the paddy, Road Challan of the paddy by the Lorry as referred above in this judgment, copy of the above referred Lorry’s freight letter dtd. 22.07.2020, complt’s sent lawyer’s letter 24.08.2020 to the O.P. copy of money receipt issued by the O.P. o the complt. dtd. 22.07.2020, besides the trade license of the complt. dtd. 27.12.2011 & to materialise the complt’s specific case of the O.P’s committing misappropriating the price of the paddy of the complt., besides Rs- 12,000/- as advance for transport cost taken by the O.P. from the complt. on 22.07.2020.
Now it is to be assessed from the evidence of the complainant and his produced documents as to whether and it so how far the complt. could materialise and substantiate his complaint against the O.P.
It is needless to reflect that the issues/points for consideration are required to be framed to reach the decisive conclusion in respect of the complaint of the complainant, in this case.
On the basis of the contentions of the complainant as reflected above in this judgment, the following issues framed for consideration.
ISSUES / POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the complainant a consumer as per Sec 2(7) of the C.P. Act of 2019?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P. caused any deficiency in service, as alleged by the complt. and has the O.P. liable for that?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief(s) as prayed for in this complaint?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the documents furnished by the complt. in this case and heard the argument of the complainant in this exparte decision.
Issues No. 1 & 2:-
At first both these issues are taken up for discussion for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity and unnecessary repetition.
Having regard to the available materials on record, nature of the complaint and the roles played by the contesting parties of this complaint case, we feel inclined to hold in consonance with the ambit, extent and scope of Sec2(7) of the C.P. Act of 2019, that the complt. being the beneficiary of the service intended to be rendered towards him by the O.P. has been consumer as per C.P. Act of 2019, specially when the O.P. couldn’t refute the complt’s specific claim that for earning his livelihood by means of self employment, the complt. had intended to avail himself of the service, promised to be rendered to him by the O.P. against receipt of due consideration from the complt. for that service.
Besides having regard to the scopes of Sec 34(i) of the C.P. Act of 2019, since this complainant’s reliefs sought for against the O.P. is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, so this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with this case.
That apart having regard to the place of residence of the complt. of this case, this complaint case has been filed in right territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
Besides in consonance with the scopes of Sec 69 of the C.P. Act of 2019, this complaint case has been filed well within the time framed required to file this complaint, by not being affected on the limitation ground.
In this backdrop we find that the complt. is a consumer as per Sec 2(7) of the C.P. Act of 2019 and this Commission has jurisdiction(both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction) to deal with the complaint which is not affected as per scopes of Sec69 of the C.P. Act of 2019.
Accordingly both these two issues are decided in favour of the complainant and are disposed of exparte.
Issues No 3&4:-
Now we take up both these two remaining issues for discussion for brevity and convenience.
The complt. was specific to substantiate that for his earning livelihood he has his self-employment. The O.P. couldn’t refute the claim of this complt. The O.P. also couldn’t establish that for commercial purpose only the complt. had intended to hire the O.P’s lorry for transportation of paddy to the complt’s intended purchaser i.e. M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd. Rice Mill.
The complt. by his submitted unrepudiated documents, as described in this judgment, could establish, in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, that the complt. had paid advance of Rs- 12,000/- to the O.P. for O.P’s undertaking responsibility of transporting complt’s paddy of 24,830 quintals of paddy to the complt’s intended purchaser of such goods i.e. M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd. Rice Mill, @ Rs- 800/- per tonne.
The O.P. also couldn’t refute the complt’s claim that the said paddy belonged to the ownership of the complainant and O.P. hadn’t had any right title, interest on that paddy. The O.P. also couldn’t challenge and deny commencingly the complt’s specific assertion that the O.P. hadn’t transported that large quantity of complt’s paddy to M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd. Rice Mill though he had taken the delivery of that quantity of paddy from the complt., for transportation to M/S Baba Agro Food Ltd. Rice Mill against consideration.
The O.P. also couldn’t establish that he had cogently answered the complt’s lawyer’s letter dtd. 24.08.2020 by which the complt. had claimed from the O.P. the price of the paddy, not delivered by the O.P. to the complt’s purchaser and also the other claim of the complt. regarding return of Rs- 12,000/- taken by the O.P. from the complt. as advance for the transportation of that paddy of the complt.
In the presence of the unchallenged/cogent documents as described in this judgment furnished by the complt. to substantiate his claim, in the absence of any contrary evidence coming from the O.P. to refute the complt’s claim, in the presence of O.P’s disservice caused to the complt., for his conduct as revealed from the transaction and documents, referred in this case, we find that the O.P. has caused deficiency in service towards the complt. and for that the complt. is entitled to get the reliefs, in this complaint case. Both these issues are thus decided exparte & disposed of in favor of the complt.
Hence it is…
ORDERED
That the complaint case be & the same is allowed in exparte in part in favour of the complt. but without cost.
The complt. is entitled to get Rs- 4,54,637/-(Four lakhs fifty four thousand six hundred and thirty seven) only from the O.P. who shall pay up the amount to the complt. within forty five(45) days from this order, failing which the O.P. shall pay Rs- 100(one hundred) only per day for each day’s delay, starting from the forty sixth day of this order, and this accumulated penalty amount shall be deposited in the ‘State Consumer Welfare Fund’ West Bengal.
The complt. of this case is also entitled to get Rs- 12,000/- paid by him to the O.P. as advance of transportation cost. The O.P. shall pay up this amount within forty five days from this order, failing which the complt. shall be at liberty to put this order into execution.
The complt. of this case is further entitled to get Rs- Fifty thousand and Rs- Fifteen thousand respectively from the O.P. of this complaint, for deficiency in service and litigation cost, respectively and the O.P. shall pay up these amount of Rs- 50,000 + 15,000 = Rs-65,000/- (Sixty five thousand ) only in total with in forty five days of this order failing which the O.P. shall pay Rs- 100/- (one hundred) only per day for each day’s delay, starting from the forty sixth(46th) day of this order, and this accumulated penalty amount shall be deposited in the ‘State Consumer Welfare Fund’ West Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the contesting parties of this complaint case, by hand/ by Regd. Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information and necessary action, as per law & relevant rules.
