Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/732/2014

Mrs. Poornima Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Amritsar Transport Company Pvt. Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.S. Ahluwalia

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/732 /2014
Date  of  Institution	:	07/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	17/12/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Poornima Sharma, Proprietor M/s Poorvi Diagnostics, SCO No.6, First floor, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

The Amritsar Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.11, Transport Area, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH. P.L. AHUJA                                        PRESIDENT

                   MRS.SURJEET KAUR                            MEMBER

                   SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Kirpal Singh Ahluwalia, Adv. proxy for Sh. J.P.S. Ahluwalia, Adv.
For OP	:	Sh. Devanshu Aggarwal, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                   The facts, in brief, are that the complainant who is in business of catering the requirements of Government hospitals by supplying surgical equipments received supply order from Commandant 92 Base Hospital Srinagar (J&K)   on 24.7.2014 for supply of surgical equipments  to be delivered latest by 25.8.2014.  The complainant booked the ordered materials with OP on 19.8.2014 by handing over the invoice and the original supply order to the OP. The total value of the material was Rs.1,12,875/-. The OP was informed about the urgency of the consignment and it was even paid Rs.800/- as extra charges for door delivery charges. The OP assured that the consignment shall be delivered by the stipulated period.  The OP booked consignment of materials of the complainant on 19.8.2014 by issuing GR.No.615898 from Chandigarh to Srinagar charging Rs.2220/- as freight and other charges from the complainant.  It has been alleged that the OP failed to deliver the booked consignment of the complainant to the consignee on or before the committed date. The complainant contacted the OP at its office who intimated the complainant that the consignment has been seized by the Sales Tax Department for want of supply order and also sent a copy of notice issued by sales tax department. It has been alleged that the complainant appended the supply order to the invoice when the material was booked with OP and the GR of the OP also has mention of the same.  The OP failed to give any satisfactory reply for non delivery of the consignment. It has further been pleaded that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), has been filed.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.             
3.           Opposite Party in its reply has stated that the consigner never got done physical verification of the contents of the bundle. As such the averments made by the complainant are false so as to make claim against the Opposite Party.  There is clear stipulation in the GR that the carrier carries goods at owner’s risk and further carrier i.e. Opposite Party shall not be responsible for leakage, breakage, sollage due to improper and week packing, natural calamity.  The claim of the complainant is not sustainable as she never annexed any challan or invoice regarding the contents, description and value of the goods which were under transportation.  The goods are booked at owner’s risk as such the Opposite Party is not liable in any manner. It has been asserted that the loss suffered by the consigner or consignee was due to natural calamity which had taken place due to heavy floods during the said period and the same were beyond the control of the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party is not at fault because the goods under transportation were detained by the  Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir for investigation regarding the genuineness of the documents. The consigner failed to annex the original purchase order duly stamped and counter-signed by the consignor and the consignee had only annexed photocopy of unsigned purchase order due to which the goods under transportation were detained for verification. After the consignment was got released from CTD the same was sent to its destination. It has further been pleaded, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, have been denied, being wrong.
4.           The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein she  has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.           Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.

7.          The case of the complainant is that she booked some ordered material with Opposite Party on 19.8.2014 and therefore, handed over the original invoice and original supply order to the Opposite Party. The total value of the material was Rs.1,12,875/- as is apparent from Annexure C-2 the copy of invoice. The Opposite Party was paid Rs.800/- as extra charges for door delivery and in total complainant paid Rs.2220/- as freight and other charges to the Opposite Party. The allegation of the complainant is that the Opposite Party failed to deliver the booked consignment on or before the committed date. When contacted the Opposite Party intimated the complainant that the consignment has been seized by the Sales Tax Department for want of supply order though complainant had attached the same with the consignment. The Opposite Party failed to give any satisfactory reply for the non-delivery of the consignment  and sent the complainant notice Annexure C-4 issued by Commercial Tax Department whereby it is mentioned that the order has been seized for want of supply order.

8.          The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that consigner never got done physical verification of the contents of the bundles.  The claim of the complainant is not sustainable as he never annexed any challan or invoice regarding the contents, description and value of the goods which were under transportation. It has been further argued that the loss to the contents was due to natural calamity and heavy floods, during the said period, which was beyond the control of the Opposite Party. It has been further submitted that the consignor failed to annex original purchase order therefore the goods under transportation were seized by the Sales Tax Department for verification.

9.          We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.2220/- in total including Rs.800/- as door delivery charges as is evident from Annexure C-3 issued by Opposite Party. There is a clear mention that supply order is attached alongwith and the quantity of the items as 10 cartoons surgical goods. However, a perusal of Annex.C-4 issued by Sales Tax Department on 26.8.2014 reveals that the reason for seizing the material was non production of supply order. But over Annex.C-3 the fact of attachment of supply order has been clearly mentioned. Hence, we feel that there is lapse on the part of Opposite Party who could not produce that document before the Sales Tax Department. As per case of the complainant the last date of delivery of the material was 25.8.2014 whereas the same was seized on 26.8.2014 at Lakhanpur a day after the date of delivery of the consignment.  The Opposite Party failed to give any satisfactory reply for this delay. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in not delivering the consignment to the consignee due to its negligent act amounts to deficiency in rendering service, which caused the complainant not only mental agony and physical harassment but she suffered financial loss also. Moreover, the Opposite Party utterly failed to prove that it was not supplied the original supply order by the complainant at the time of booking of the consignment. The Opposite Party being a professional in delivering consignment every day must be expert enough to ask the consigner the requisite documents but it miserably failed to do so. Hence as held above there is deficiency in service on its part.

10.          So far as the argument of the Opposite Party with regard to its limited liability qua the freight charges is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The Opposite Party is liable for safe delivery of the consignment when it charged for the same from the complainant. The Opposite Party itself proved to be negligent in not producing the relevant document before the Sales Tax authorities that led to the seizure of the goods booked by the complainant. It was obligatory on the part of the Opposite Party to keep the original invoice purchase/ supply order etc. intact for the safe delivery of the consignment after getting proper clearance from the govt. agencies. The Opposite Party has miserably failed to keep supply order in its safe custody and lost the same leading to seizure of consignment. Even after this, the Opposite Party did not realize its responsibility to inform the complainant about the status of the consignment. Therefore, the Opposite Party can not take benefit of its own wrongs.     

11.          In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed :-

 

(a)      To pay Rs.1,12,875/- being the cost of the invoiced material booked by the complainant;          

 

(b)     To Pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment, as also financial loss.

 

(c)      To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

12.          The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.(a) and (b) shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs as at Sr. No.(c) above.

13.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th   December, 2015                                                                                       sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER