Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/73

M/s Gaurav electronics - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Sandhu - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Chanana

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

     DISTRICT  CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM,   FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      73

Date of Institution : 08.06.2015

Date of Decision :    8.02.2016

M/s Gaurav Electronics, Ram Bagh Road, M G M  School, Faridkot through its Prop. Gaurav Aneja.                                                                .... ...Complainant

Versus

1. Sandeep Sandhu, Prop. DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd 91-A, Nehru Shopping Center, Faridkot.

2. Super Franchise, DTDC Near Railway Parcel Godown, Kamal Cinema road, Bathinda through Mr Ram Kumar.

3. M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd DTDC House NO. 3, Victoria Road, Banglore-560047 through its Manager/MD......OPs

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P L Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Mandeep Chanana, Adv. Ld Counsel for Complainant,

    Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

    

   (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to Ops to pay him Rs.1,00,000/-as cost of items booked and to compensate him to the tune of Rs 3,00,000 for harassment and mental agony and has also prayed for litigation expenses of Rs 20,000/-.

   2                                  Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant was having an authorised Panasonic Service Centre under the name and style of M/s Gaurav Electronics and as per instructions of Panasonic Company, complainant was to send back all the defective parts of various products to the Company to stake claim regarding services rendered by complainant on behalf of Panasonic Company and for this purpose complainant got booked a parcel containing defective parts of different electronic products of Panasonic Company weighing 100 kg with OPs vide receipt no 5387 dt 14.10.2014, issued by OP-1 and OP-1 received total Rs 2700/- i.e Rs 2200/-as courier charges and Rs 500/-for early delivery of the parcel and also assured complainant that delivery would be made within 5 days, but till date, neither the articles sent by complainant have reached their destination nor these are returned to him and due to this complainant is unable to claim his service charges and claim of defective parts from the Company and as such, suffered a huge financial loss. Complainant paid many visits to OPs with request to know about the status of items sent by him to the Company, but OP-1 did not give any satisfactory reply. Complainant also searched the website of OPs, but he could not trace out the status of his consignment. Complainant also contacted OP-2 over phone, but he also refused to accommodate the complainant. This act of OPs has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/- with interest and for compensation of Rs3,00,000/- besides Rs 20,000/- as cost of the complaint. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                                The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.06.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

   4                                                  On receipt of the notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It is averred that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. Complaint filed by complainant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The Ambala Cantt Branch Office of DTDC Courier Service and Shambu Govt Barrier Ambala have not been joined in the present complaint, which are necessary parties and                        therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Moreover, present complaint is filed with malafide intention and complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present because complainant himself is at fault. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. However, on merits Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect. It is denied that complainant was having authorised Panasonic Service Centre for the period of April 2014 to March 2015 in Faridkot and he used to earn his livelihood by doing this work. It is asserted that complainant has not mentioned the date of inspection and any kind of record under which Company has passed the defective parts for claim regarding the services rendered by the complainant. however, it is admitted that complainant got booked a parcel containing the defective parts of different electronic products of Panasonic Company with OPs vide receipt no. 5387 dt 14.10.2014 and Ops received Rs 2700/- from complainant, but it is totally denied that Ops charged Rs 500/-for early delivery and gave kind of assurance for delivery within five days. It is submitted that Op-1 sent the booked items on 14.10.2014 i.e the same day to OP-2,who sent the same to Ambala Cantt Branch DTDC Courier Services for delivery of booked items to its destination and when Ambala Branch office loaded the booked items for delivery and reached at Govt Shambu Barrier Ambala, then during checking at the barrier, objection was raised by Shambu barrier that booked items do not have CST/1ST number necessary to cross the barrier and for passing of booked items and without that number, booked items cannot be passed and due to this Ambala Cantt Branch DTDC courier held up the consignment for providing the CST/IST no. and OP-2 conveyed the same to OP-1, which OP-1 conveyed to complainant and OP-1 also requested complainant to provide CST/IST no. for delivery of booked items, but complainant kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and after a long wait, when complainant did not provide the requisite CST/IST number, Ambala Cantt Branch DTDC Courier returned the booked items to OP-2, who in turn sent back the same to OP-1 and on receiving the booked articles, OP-1 personally conveyed this fact to complainant but complainant totally refused to accept the returned items and thereafter on 2.05.2015, OP-1 visited the shop of complainant alongwith Harpreet Singh and loaded down the booked items to him after paying freight charges from his own pocket. After checking, complainant took these articles into his possession and affixed a stamp of his shop, but refused to sign the delivery run sheet of OP-1 on the ground that he would talk to Panasonic Company and he would sign the delivery run sheet after talking with Panasonic Company, but at the time of returning the articles, Ops clicked the photographs as proof. OP-1 again visited the shop of complainant, but he did not sign the delivery run sheet despite repeated requests by OPs. Complainant has already received the said articles on 2.05.2015 and now, he has filed the present complaint with malafide intention. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. Allegations regarding fraud committed by OPs with complainant are totally denied being wrong, incorrect and baseless. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

   5                                   The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-8 and then, closed his evidence.

   6                                   Ld Counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Sandhu as Ex OP-1, affidavit of Harpreet Singh as Ex OP-9 and documents Ex OP-2 to 8, OP-10 and OP-11 and then, closed the same.

   7                                    Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant was having an authorised Panasonic Service Centre under the name and style of M/s Gaurav Electronics. The copy of certificate of Authorization is Ex C-2. The complainant had to send back the defective parts of various products of the Company to claim regarding the services rendered on behalf of Panasonic Company by the complainant. For it, complainant booked a parcel containing defective parts of different electronic products of Panasonic Company weighing 100 Kg with Ops to deliver to Panasonic Company at Gurgaon vide receipt no. 5387 dt 14.10.2014 through OP-1. They duly issued challan number and he paid Rs 2700/- to OPs as freight charges. Copy of receipt and delivery challan is Ex C-3 and 4. The OPs assured that they would deliver the goods within 5 days but thereafter, uptill today neither the said articles were delivered at its destination nor they returned the same to the complainant. Due to this, complainant could not claim his service charges and claim of defective parts from the Company and suffered huge financial loss. Complainant visited OP-1 various times to enquire about the status of parcel sent to Company but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Complainant also tried to search the status of parcel on the website of DTDC Couriers but there was no status ever traced out. He also contacted OP-2 over phone who assured for delivery of consignment and thereafter, they flatly refused to accommodate the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. This act and conduct of OPs has caused great financial loss as well as mental tension to complainant as due to non delivery of consignment, complainant has failed to claim service charges and price of defective parts from the Company. Complainant is entitled for the price of parts alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has prayed that Ops may be directed to pay the price of the parts alongwith compensation.

   8                                            To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the present complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts as items booked by the complainant have already been returned to complainant at its shop on 2.05.2015. He has filed the present complaint with mala fide intention to harass the Ops and to get undue benefit from OPs. He is estopped from his own act and conduct to file the present complaint because it is the complainant, who is at fault. The parcel of the complainant could not be delivered due to non supply of CST/IST number by him. The OPs requested him a number of times to provide the CST/IST number. It is wrong that complainant had an authorized Service Station of Panasonic Company. However, it is correct that the complainant booked a parcel containing defective parts of different electronic products of Panasonic Company to deliver to Panasonic Company at Gurgaon on 14.10.2014 and paid Rs 2,700/- as freight charges. The OPs duly issued receipt regarding it but it is wrong that they assured that the goods would be delivered within five days. OP-1 immediately sent these goods to OP-2 on the same day for delivery without any delay and OPs further sent the parcel to its Ambala Cantt Branch for delivery of the same to its destination, but when goods reached at Government Shambu Barrier, Ambala, during checking they raised objection that booked items have no CST/IST no., which is required to cross the inter-state barrier. Without any CST/IST No. no goods can pass through Inter State Barrier as goods did not have CST/IST no. So, the parcel held at Ambala Cantt Branch of DTDC courier. The OP-2 conveyed the same to OP-1 and OP-1 personally conveyed the same to complainant and requested him to provide CST/IST no. for delivery of booked items but complainant did not pay any heed to it and did not provide the CST/IST number. Then, Ambala Cantt Branch returned the booked items to OP-2 and further OP-2 returned these articles to OP-1 and on receiving the same, OP-1 personally conveyed the same to complainant to receive these articles but he refused to accept these items and on 2.05.2015, OP-1 personally returned these articles to complainant at his shop and he requested complainant to receive these goods and to sign the delivery run sheet but he refused to sign the delivery run sheet. At the time of returning the goods to complainant, the OP-1 also took photographs of these items as a proof. Copy of the status report of parcel dt 13.11.2014 is Ex OP-4. Copy of delivery run sheet is Ex OP-7 and photographs of the parcel are Ex OP-5 and OP-6. OP-1 requested many times complainant to sign the delivery run sheet, but he refused to sign the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and there is no delay on their part for delivery of the booked parcel at its destination. Fault is only on the part of complainant who did not provide the required CST/IST no. to OPs which is required to pass the inter-state barrier. Due to non supply of CST/IST no. by the complainant, the parcel could not be delivered at its destination and the same is delivered to the complainant at his shop. It is wrong that due to non delivery of parcel, the complainant suffered financial loss, mental tension or harassment. It is wrong that due to non delivery of goods, the complainant could not claim his service charges and price of defective parts from the Company. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint against Ops by levelling false allegations. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

   9                                     The case of the complainant is that he booked a parcel with Ops /couriers to deliver it to Panasonic Company at Gurgaon on 14.10.2014 and paid Rs 2,700/-as freight charges, but the Ops failed to deliver that parcel at its destination and kept the same with them. OPs replied that a parcel was booked by them to deliver at Gurgaon and they sent the parcel without any delay, but that parcel was held at Government Shambu Barrier, Ambala as it required CST/IST no. to cross the inter-state barrier. They demanded CST/IST no. from complainant, but he did not supply the same. So, due to non-supply of CST/IST no. the parcel could not be delivered at its destination and finally, they returned the same to complainant at his shop on 2.05.2015 and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

   10.                                   During the course of arguments, the ld counsel for complainant admitted that they have received the parcel back from OP-1 during the pendency of this complaint, but he submitted that they received this parcel in a very dilapidated, damaged and open condition, which is very much clear from the photographs Ex OP-5 and OP-6, which is produced by OPs themselves which is allegedly taken by them at the time of returning the parcel to the complainant. It is admitted case that the complainant booked a parcel to deliver at Gurgaon with OPs on 14.10.2014 and paid Rs 2,700/- as freight charges. It is further admitted that this parcel could not be delivered at its destination. The plea of the OPs is that the parcel could not be delivered at its destination as the complainant did not provide its CST/IST no, which is required to pass the goods at inter-state barrier and due to non supply of CST/IST no. the goods could not be delivered at its destination. In support they produced status report of the parcel dt 13.11.2014 as Ex OP-4 where the status of the parcel is mentioned as ‘in transit’. It was held at Ambala Cantt Branch on 30.10.2014 due to requisite CST/IST/TIN No., which shows that the parcel is held at Ambala due to non supply of CST/IST/TIN No. by the complainant.

   11                                              From the perusal of receipt no. 5387 dt 11.10.2014 issued by OPs Ex OP-3 and delivery challan, it is found that on delivery challan issued by OPs where all the detail of the defective parts etc, which is contained in the parcel, the TIN No. of complainant is duly written i.e 3252150745. Further, there is TIN No. of consignee i.e of Panasonic Company is also duly written. Further, in his evidence the complainant has produced copy of certificate of registration dt 15.01.2013 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1955 as Ex C-6 and certificate of registration under Punjab VAT Act, 2005 as Ex C-7, which clearly proves that complainant firm is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act and Punjab VAT Act and having a valid TIN No, which is duly written on the delivery challan Ex C-4. So, in these circumstances, the OPs cannot take the plea that complainant did not provide them TIN no. of his firm and due to which they failed to deliver the goods at its destination. Moreover, if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the complainant did not provide the Tin No. to OPs at the time of booking of parcel, then, in that case also, the OPs failed to produce an iota of evidence that they ever informed regarding it to complainant and demanded Tin No from him. As per their own version, the goods were booked with them on 14.10.2014 and returned by them to complainant on 2.05.2015 i.e about seven months after the booking of the  goods, but they failed to produce any evidence that they ever approached complainant or written any letter to him demanding TIN No or CST/IST number.

   12                                       We have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file.

   13                                           From the careful perusal of the record and in view of documents placed on file, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant provided his TIN No. to OPs at the time of booking of the parcel and it is only the fault of OPs who did not deliver the parcel at its destination and retained it with them for about seven months and returned the same in a damaged and open condition to the complainant. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to refund Rs 2,700/-received by them as freight charges from the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12 % per anum from the date of payment i.e 14.10.2014 till its final realization. The OPs are further ordered to pay Rs 25,000/-to complainant for causing  damage to the articles booked by the complainant and retaining these with them for about seven months and also for causing financial loss, harassment, inconvenience and mental agony to him and Rs 3000/-as litigation expenses. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

   Announced in Open Forum

   Dated : 8.02.2016

                                  Member            Member                  President

    (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (Ajit Aggarwal)