Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that the complainant firm is partnership firm and Rohit Kumar Jindal is duly competent to file the present complaint and said complainant firm is doing a business of wholesale and retail of medicines through its partners for self employment only to earn livelihood and hence, the complainant falls under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further alleges that during the course of business, the complainant sent medicines to M/s.New National Drug House, Ferozepur City on 22.07.2020 amounting to Rs.25,048/- through Opposite Party goods carriers and in this regard, the Opposite Party issued GR No. 11929 dated 22.07.2020 on payment of Rs.70/- and assured that the consignment will reach at its destination within 3 days positively. But after one week, the complainant enquired from the consignee about the aforesaid delivery of the goods sent though Opposite Party, but the consignee of the goods told that they did not receive the goods so far, but to the utter dismay and surprise of the complainant, that the Opposite Party has failed to deliver the same to the consignee till date nor the same has been returned to the complainant. The complainant continuously visited the office of Opposite Party and enquired about the said consignment, but the Opposite Party did not answer him satisfactorily and kept the matter off under one or the other pretext and has failed to deliver the said consignment at the destination till date and at last, the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant which is a great lapse on the part of the Opposite Party and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and this act of the Opposite Party has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To refund the price of the goods amounting to Rs.25,048/- and also to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of complaint and
- Any other relief which this Hon’ble District Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, hence Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.07.2021 of this District Commission.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1alongwith copy of receipt Ex.C2, copy of debit note Ex.C3, copy of partnership deed Ex.C4, copy of letter of authorisation Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the Complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident the complainant firm is partnership firm and Rohit Kumar Jindal is duly competent to file the present complaint and said complainant firm is doing a business of wholesale and retail of medicines through its partners for self employment only to earn livelihood and hence, the complainant falls under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The case of the complainant is that during the course of business, the complainant sent medicines to M/s.New National Drug House, Ferozepur City on 22.07.2020 amounting to Rs.25,048/- through Opposite Party goods carriers and in this regard, the Opposite Party issued GR No. 11929 dated 22.07.2020 on payment of Rs.70/- and assured that the consignment will reach at its destination within 3 days positively. But after one week, the complainant enquired from the consignee about the aforesaid delivery of the goods sent though Opposite Party, but the consignee of the goods told that they did not receive the goods so far, but to the utter dismay and surprise of the complainant when the Opposite Party has failed to deliver the same to the consignee till date nor the same has been returned to the complainant. The complainant continuously visited the office of Opposite Party and enquired about the said consignment, but the Opposite Party did not answer him satisfactorily and kept the matter off under one or the other pretext and has failed to deliver the said consignment at the destination till date and the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant which is a great lapse on the part of the Opposite Party and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and this act of the Opposite Party has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience. To corroborate his aforesaid assertion, the Complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of receipt Ex.C2, copy of debit note Ex.C3, copy of partnership deed Ex.C4, copy of letter of authorisation Ex.C5. Not only this, with regard to loss incurred due to non supply of the goods, the complainant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs on account of mental tension and harassment caused in the hands of the Opposite Party and cited judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd. III (2000) SLT 554-II (2000), CLT 83 (SC), 1(2000) CPJ 42 (SC) 2000 (4) SCC, 91 in this judgement Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “loss of goods or injury to goods or non delivery of goods, entrusted to a common carrier for carriage, would amount to a deficiency in service and, therefore, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, would be maintainable. When a person entrusts a goods to a common carrier for transportation and the carrier accepts the same, there is a contract for ‘service’, within the meaning of CP Act. Therefore, when the goods are not delivered, there is a deficiency of service.” The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as the Opposite Party did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Party has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Party have no defence to offer or defend the complaint.
6. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Party has adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by not delivering the goods amounting to Rs.25,048/- at its destination. On this count, the Complainant prayed for refund of the price of the goods in question as well as to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.25,048/- (Rupees twenty five thousands forty eight only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 26.03.2021 till its actual realization. Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 28.12.2021.
