M/s.Bansal Computer Care, Near Shaheedi Park, Moga through its proprietor Ram Lal son of Dhani Ram.

Complainant.



Versus



1. Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Private Limited, Registered Office: G.T.Road, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Private Limited, Gandhi Road, Mathura Puri, Moga, Distt.Moga.

3. Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Private Limited, Opposite Raja Motors, Bhatinda.



Opposite Parties



Sh.Ram Lal, proprietor of M/s.Bansal Computer Care-complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Private Limited, Registered Office: G.T.Road, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar and others (herein-after referred to as ‘Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier’)-opposite parties directing them to deliver the printer or to pay its value and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit be granted.

2. Briefly stated, the complainant purchased 20 printers of HP company from M/s.Nahar Enterprises, Bhatinda vide invoice no.4485, Tin no. 03812028314 dated 12.11.2008. That the above said firm M/s.Nahar Enterprises, Bhatinda dispatched the aforesaid 20 printers to the complainant through OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier vide GR No.321931. That the OP2-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier delivered only 19 printers instead of 20 to the complainant.
That on enquiry, the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier assured that they have received one box less from Bhatinda and the same will be delivered to the complainant as and when it was received. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier time and again to deliver the remaining printer, but no satisfactory reply was given and finally refused to deliver the said computer. Hence the present complaint.


3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier who appeared through Sh.M.S.Sodhi Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier taken up the proper receipt of the goods/ printers from the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

Moreover, there is no GR no.321193 in the name of complainant. On merits, it was averred that vide GR No.321931 dated 17.11.2008 the complainant received the goods without any objection. Moreover, the said receipt was duly signed by the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier. All other allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied being incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.


4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of notices Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, copy of bill Ex.A4, copy of driver copy Ex.A5, registered cover Ex.A6, acknowledgements Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, copy of receipt Ex.A9 and closed his evidence.


5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Ajay Kumar, proprietor, copy of authorization letter Ex.R2, copy of receipt Ex.R3, copy of delivery register Ex.R4, copy of builty book Ex.R5 and closed their evidence.



6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.N.K.Palta ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.M.S.Sodhi ld. counsel for the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.


7. Sh.N.K.Palta ld.counsel for the complainant mainly argued that the OPs -Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier has committed deficiency in service by giving the short delivery of one printer to the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. Admittedly, the complainant got booked 20 printers with the OP3-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier at Bhatinda for their delivery to Moga after purchasing the same from M/s.Nahar Enterprises, Bhatinda.
When the goods reached Moga, the OP2- Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier gave the short delivery of one printer and this fact has been mentioned on the driver’s copy of GR Ex.A5. Ld.counsel for the complainant had moved an application before this Forum directing the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier to produce the original GR and its driver copy, but they failed to produce the same for the reasons best known to them. Photo copy of driver copy Ex.A5 produced by the complainant shows that at the time of delivery they have mentioned about the short delivery of one printer by making an endorsement. On the other hand, the copy of delivery register Ex.R4 produced by the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier showing the full delivery to the complainant is of no help to them because there was some overwriting against this entry.
Against the serial number 844 of this entry, the word ‘20’ has been overwritten and no explanation has been given as to why this entry is different from other entries made in the register. The word ‘20’ mentioned against this serial number is written differently with the word 2 0 written against other entries in the register. Thus, it shows that the OP2-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier had tempered this entry in order to show the full delivery to the complainant instead of delivery of 19 printers as alleged. This fact stands proved because they failed to produce the original driver copy wherein the complainant had specifically mentioned about the short delivery of one printer.


8. The complainant has claimed Rs.4000/- as value of the printer, but the cash memo Ex.A4 shows that the value of the printers varied from Rs.1500/- to Rs.3200/-. He has purchased 10 printers for Rs.1500/- each and remaining 10 printers for Rs.3200/- each. Though the complainant has claimed the value of the short delivery of printer as Rs.4000/-, but taking into consideration the lower value of the printers which was Rs.1500/-, we hold that the complainant is entitled to Rs.1500/- as price of the short delivery of the printer from the OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier.


9. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of notices Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, copy of bill Ex.A4, copy of drivers copy Ex.A5, registered cover Ex.A6, acknowledgements Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, copy of receipt Ex.A9 and we believe and rely upon the same. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Ajay Kumar, proprietor and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 and we discard the same.


10. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.


11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. The OPs-Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier is directed to pay Rs.1500/- as price of the short delivery of the printer alongwith Rs.2500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this

Shaminder Pal Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Advocate r/o Kothe Ram Nagar Village Hari Ke Kalan, Tehsil and District Muktsar.



…..Complainant.
Versus


1- Jai Durga Road Carriers through its Proprietor Rajinder Kumar Bansal, near ` Jawahar Gate, Raikot, District Ludhiana.

2- Delhi Punjab Goods Carriers (P) Limited, through its Proprietor, Muktsar Road, Kotkapura.

….Opposite parties.



O R D E R

T.N.VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Complainant on 6.7.2008, handedover an old electric motor of 5 BHP to opposite party no.1-Transport Company, for delivery to him at Kotkapura. Opposite party no.1 issued receipt no.2018 dated 6.7.2008 to the complainant. On 14.7.2008, when complainant went to collect the motor from opposite party no.2, found the same heavily damaged. Its fan and pump were broken. Though motor was delivered to opposite party in very good condition. Now claim by the complainant in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is that damage to the motor was caused by both opposite parties, during transportation and failed to compensate him for the loss despite serving legal notice dated 9.8.2008. Claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/- along with Rs.5500/- litigation expenses, with direction to deliver motor in good condition.

2- Opposite party no.1 in reply has admitted booking of motor with them by the complainant, for transportation to Kotkapura. But denied rest of his allegations for want of knowledge that on 14.7.2008, went to collect the same from opposite party no.2. Neither motor was heavily damaged, nor fan and pump of the same were broken. Complainant has levelled false allegations. It is averred that on receipt old motor on 6.7.2008 from the complainant, the very next day it was given to opposite party no.2 at its Ludhiana office and thereafter, opposite party no.2 sent it to Kotkapura on 12.7.2008. Alongwith motor, other articles were also sent under challan dated 12.7.2008 to Kotkapura through Transport Company of opposite party no.2. A receipt was forged and fabricated allegedly issued by opposite party no.2, regarding damage condition of the motor. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part, nor complainant suffered any loss due to any negligence on their part.

3- Opposite party no.2 did not contest the complaint and is being proceeded exparte.

4- Complainant and opposite party no.1 adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

5- It is admitted that complainant vide receipt Ex.C1 booked one old motor with opposite party no.1, for transportation upto Kotkapura. Vide that receipt, a sum of Rs.340/- was charged by opposite party no.1 from the complainant. Opposite party no.1 then on 12.7.2008 vide challan Ex.R1, sent that motor through transport company of opposite party no.2 to Kotkapura, alongwith other articles mentioned therein.

6- It is in such scenario claimed by the complainant that on 14.7.2008, when went to godown of opposite party no.2 on 14.7.2008, to collect the motor, it was found heavily damaged, as fan and pump of the motor were broken. Complainant in his affidavit states that old motor in good condition was entrusted for transportation to opposite party no.1.

7- Consequently, contended on behalf of complainant that he suffered loss, as damage to the motor was caused during transportation, after he had delivered motor to opposite party no.1 on 6.7.2008. Whereas, on behalf of opposite party no.1, argued that false plea is raised by the complainant and there is no proof or any expert report, to prove his false allegations. Complainant fabricated report Ex.C2 dated 14.7.2008. Hence, not liable to pay any compensation.

8- Be it stated that complainant before filing the complaint, had served legal notice Ex.C3 to opposite party that when on 14.7.2008, went to collect the motor, it was heavily damaged. Complainant in support that motor was heavily damaged, has relied on report Ex.C2 dated 14.7.2008, which appears on letter head pad of opposite party no.2. It is mentioned in the report that old motor was received in damaged condition, as its pump was damaged. There is nothing before us, to conclude that this report Ex.C2 is fabricated or forged. We can rely on the report Ex.C2, as it is on the letter head pad of opposite party no.2.

This means and reflects that fan etc. of the motor got damaged during transportation. Had the motor been damaged, opposite party no.1 would have mentioned such aspect in their receipt Ex.C1. Non-mentioning of such defect reflects that it was not damaged, when delivered to opposite party no.1 by the complainant on 6.7.2008. But subsequently due to transportation, the motor was damaged. Contention of opposite party no.1 is that had motor been delivered in damaged condition, they would have recorded it in challan Ex.R1. But non-mentioning of damage of the motor in challan Ex.R1 dated 12.7.2008, would be of no consequence. Because it was on 12.7.2008 that opposite party no.1 delivered motor, for further transportation to Kotkapura, vide this challan on 12.7.2008. It means on account of transportation, damage was caused.

9- For such damage suffered by the motor, both opposite parties no.1 & 2 would be jointly liable. Because complainant had directly availed services, for transportation of the motor, of opposite party no.1, who entrusted the job to opposite party no.2. So, they would be jointly liable.

10- How much damage on account of monetary loss to the motor was suffered by the complainant, there is no evidence. Also, no evidence is led how much amount is required to repair the motor. Therefore, such damage need to be assessed by us, as per our own whims and estimates, which may appear to be reasonable in circumstances of the case.

11- Consequently, for such deficiency in service and due to fault on part of the carrier, we allow this complaint and as a result, direct both opposite parties, to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant, which in our view, shall be reasonable to compensate the complainant, for loss suffered and also pay litigation costs Rs.500/-. The motor if not taken by complainant, be delivered to him in that very condition in which it is lying with opposite party no.2. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of order.