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