BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 224 of 2013
Date of Institution : 20.12.2013
Date of Decision : 11.1.2017
Rajender Sharma son of Sh. Jagdish Rai Sharma, resident of Kanganpur road, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Shyam Transport company, near Ashok Dharamkanta, Rania road, Sirsa, Tehsil & District Sirsa through competent authority.
- India Pesticide Limited, 2, Jai Aashiana, in front of Kinni corner, I.C. Colony, Boriwali (West) Mumbai 400 102 IFI 28946 through Incharge/ Establisher.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. G.S. Rana, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief, is that the complainant loaded the pesticide from Sirsa to Mumbai through opposite party no.1 i.e. Shyam Transport company and complainant delivered the pesticide to opposite party no.2 in time. The complainant started from Sirsa on 4.9.2013 with goods in his truck No. HR-57/5251 and delivered the same on 10.9.2013 to op no.2. The complainant is consumer of the ops. The op no.2 agreed to pay fair of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant for delivering the goods and builty number of the same is 4955 dated 4.4.2013. Out of the said amount, Rs.10,000/- were paid to him in advance and cheque of an amount of Rs.4000/- was given to him by op no.2 and remaining amount of Rs.7000/- was not given by op no.2. The complainant demanded the said amount from ops but they used to post pone the matter on one pretext or the other and finally have refused to pay the amount of Rs.7000/-. The complainant requested a number of times to op no.2 in this regard but op no.2 did not listen him. The complainant also moved an application in police post but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply and took certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability and that complaint does not cover under the Consumer Protection Act in any way as answering op is consumer and that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that entire goods i.e. pesticides booked through the op no.1 was in good overloaded condition and other goods became the cause of damage of the insecticide of batch Nos. price, date of manufacturing etc. on over loading the truck and placing the material upon the goods belonging to op no.2. In this way the answering op had to suffer the loss of Rs.1,60,300/- and complainant is liable to pay the said amount to answering op. The answering op without delay informed the situation to their Head Office as well as the Transporter who booked the material and offered to deduct Rs.7000/- against loss of the cartages of Rs.3500+4550 for leakage of 10 liters of insecticide. The balance of transportation through cheque of Rs.4000/- was paid bonafidely. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. Initially op no.1 also appeared through counsel but on 28.8.2015, his counsel stated that he has no instruction to appear on behalf of op no.1 and none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bilty Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1, copy of bilty Ex.R1, copy of delivery challan Ex.R2 and copy of e-mail Ex.R3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in the present complaint has failed to show as to how he is the consumer of the opposite parties. The pesticide was loaded in the truck of the complainant through Shyam Transport company i.e. op no.1 from Sirsa and which was to be delivered by the complainant to the opposite party no.2 against consideration/ fare of Rs.21,000/- and admittedly out of the said amount an amount of Rs.14,000/- has been paid to the complainant, therefore, complainant cannot be said to be the consumer of the opposite parties. As such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Moreover, according to the op no.2 damage was caused to the boxes of insecticides in the truck due to over loading and there was leakage of 10 liters of insecticide and in this regard op no.2 has placed on file copy of e-mail Ex.R3 and it is clear from the record that ops have availed/ hired the service of the complainant.
7. Keeping in view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.1.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
