Complaint Case No :1076 of 2009

Date of Institution : 30.07.2009

Date of Decision : 06.11.2009

Subhash Chander Bajaj son of Sh. Guru Ditta Bajaj, R/o H.No. 550, Phase 3-B-I, Mohali.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S



1) Jalandhar Golden Transport Co., Head Office Plot No. 37, New Timber Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh – 160019, through its Manager.



2) Jalandhar Golden Transport Company, 65, Khanna Market, Delhi, through its Agent Sh. Parshotam.


.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.B.K. Duggal, Adv. for Complainant.

Sh.Vaneesh Khanna, Adv. for OPs.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Concisely put, Subhash Chander Bajaj – Complainant purchased manyari material i.e. Shaving Cream, Perfumes, After Shave etc. etc. from Delhi worth Rs.30,000/- on 8.4.2009 and booked a builty of one nug of manyari material with OP No.2 for Chandigarh vide Annexure C-1, which was to be collected by the Complainant on next date from OP No.1. When he approached OP No. 1 to collect the aforesaid builty, it was informed that the same was loaded to another vehicle and he should collect the same after 2-3 days. After 2-3 days, he went to collect it, but was again asked to collect the same after 15 days. After 15 days, when he contacted OP No. 1, he was told that his builty was misplaced, with an assurance to make good the loss within a short period. In the meanwhile, on 6.5.2009, he again purchased Manyari material worth Rs.25,700/- from Delhi and again booked builty of two nugs with OP No.2, which he was to collect from OP No. 1 on the next date. On the next day, when he went there to collect the builty, to his utter surprise, one nug of his builty was misplaced. OP No. 1, again took plea that the builty of one nug was wrongly loaded to another vehicle and that he would receive the same within 2-3 days. It was further alleged that after 2-3 days, when he again went to the office of OP No. 1 to find out the actual position of delivery of two nugs which was lost by OP No. 2, upon which OP No.1 made same excuse which was given earlier, but OP No.1 again agreed to pay the actual amount of the builty of two nugs, but they neither delivered the nugs of manyari material nor paid the material amount. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs, but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3] OPs filed reply admitting the factual matrix of the case. It was pleaded that the Complainant had booked two packets, containing Manyari material, with the OPs on 6.5.2009 and both the packets were duly transported to the office of OP No.1. However, for the reasons best known to him, he collected only one packet from OP No. 1 and assured to collect the second packet after 2/3 days. But he did not come to collect the same, which was lying with OP No. 1 and upon which OPs were entitled to claim demurrage charges @ Rs.40/- per day. It was further pleaded that the Complainant had never booked any goods with OP No. 2 on 8.4.2009 and the Receipt (Annexure C-1) does not belong to them, therefore, there was no question of OP No. 2 telling the Complainant to collect the material from OP No. 1. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6] The contention of the Complainant that he had booked a consignment on 8.4.2009 vide Annexure C-1, has been denied by the OPs. Annexure C-1 does not show the name and address of the OP thereon. Nor are there any signatures of the person receiving the Bales. Even the stamp of the OP is not affixed thereon. There is stamp showing that the builty would be prepared on receipt of the bill from the party, which shows that no bill regarding the Bales was given to the person, who prepared Annexure C-1 nor has any been produced with this complaint. A perusal of Annexure C-2 shows that the builties are being prepared by the OP on their letter pad and not like Annexure C-1. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove if he delivered any Bales to the OP on 8.4.2009, regarding which Annexure C-1 was prepared.

7] Now coming to the bales supplied on 6.5.2009, regarding which Annexure C-2 was issued. The OPs have admitted that two items were given to them by the Complainant for being transported from Delhi to Chandigarh. It is also admitted that the Bales had been received at Chandigarh, out of which the Complainant took the delivery of only one item. We cannot believe that the OPs would deliver only one item to the Complainant, when he has gone there to take the delivery of the two items. In case, he was not taking delivery of the other item, they would have obtained some writing from him regarding the reasons therefor. The Complainant served a notice [Annexure C-3] on the OPs, to which no reply was sent by the OPs to mention that the other item was also lying with them or that the Complainant refused to take its delivery. Even during the trail of this complaint, the OPs never produced the second item lying with them. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the OPs have taken a false ground in their reply that both the items were available with them, but the Complainant took delivery of only one item and not the other. On the other hand, the contention of the Complainant appears to be correct that the other bale has since been misplaced by the OPs and they were making excuses and false promises to the Complainant to trace out the same and deliver it. Ultimately, they failed to deliver the same. That is why when a notice Annexure C-3 was served on the OPs, they did not have any excuse to make and, therefore, did not give any reply to the same.

8] The contention of the Complainant is that he had sent goods worth Rs.25,700/- vide these two Bales. The OPs have delivered only one bale. They are, therefore, liable to pay Rs.12,850/- to the Complainant as price of the bale lost by them. In addition to that, they will pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to the Complainant and also thrusting this litigation on him.

9] In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.12,850/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.17,850/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, along with Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation. If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the OPs would be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the entire amount since the filing of the present complaint i.e.30.07.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.