No. 15/18.12.2008.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Anjan Dutta, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. Garg, the Ld. Advocate are present.  We have heard the Ld. Advocate Mr. Dutta and Mr. Garg, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.  The contention of the Appellant is that goods were sent from time to time to Respondent and in respect of three consignments bearing No. 2732, 2733 and 438 in spite of instructions given by the Complainant the O.Ps did not act according to the instruction.  Specific reference was made to the letter dated 03.09.2005 and 23.09.2005 by which the direction was given to return the goods back.  These instructions, allegedly were not complied with nor were responded to.  The letter dated 30.05.2006 also did not produce any result.  Accordingly the Complainant by its lawyer’s letter dated 07.08.2006 made its claims.  This letter was replied by the Lawyer of Transking Carrier (P) Ltd. intimating that the consignments Notes No. 2732 and 2733 did not belong to Transking Carrier (P) Ltd.  With regard to the consignment Note No. 438 it has been indicated to the Complainant to take delivery of the goods within a week after payment of the charges and upon surrendering consignee copy of the Consignment Note.  It is contended on behalf of the Complainant in the present appeal that when the Complainant asked for the return of the goods, the O.P. did not comply and when by Lawyer’s letter communication was made the same was replied instead of sending the goods according to the earlier instruction or paying according to the Lawyer’s letter.

It is further contention of the Complainant that Neha Freight Carriers and Transking Carrier (P) Ltd. is one and same firm having same address and same telephone number.

Mr. Garg, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. contended that Neha Freight Carriers was a Proprietorship firm and Transking Carrier (P) Ltd.is a limited Company and, therefore is not and cannot be the self same person in the eye of law.  It is further contended that in view of the above facts the transaction under Consignment Note No. 2732 & 2733 are different from the transaction covered by Consignment No. 438 which was undertaken by the present O.P. namely Transking Carrier (P) Ltd.  It is argued by Mr. Garg that in terms of the letter dated 23.08.2006 on behalf of his client when offer was made the same was not responded nor any indication was given as to the instruction of the Complainant and in the circumstances there is no deficiency of service.

Considering the above contentions we find that in the absence of any contrary document it is to be accepted that Neha Freight Carriers is admittedly a Proprietorship firm is different from Transking Carrier (P) Ltd. which from the name of the organization appears to a Limited Company.

We further find that in respect of the two transactions covered by Consignment Note Nos. 2732 & 2733 transaction being a separate one with a Proprietorship firm which is different from the present O.P., the only consideration is in respect of the transaction under the Consignment Note No. 438.  In respect of the same as we find that when the O.P. communicated its stand by its letter dated 23.08.2006, as the Complainant did not give further instruction, it cannot be alleged there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.  Accordingly there being no ground for interference, the appeal is dismissed.