Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/19/2021

M/s Spoton Logistics Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dinesh Kumar Malhotra - Opp.Party(s)

Amber Sachdeva Adv.

04 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

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

Appeal No	:	A/19/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	25/02/2021
Date   of   Decision	:	04/07/2022

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Spoton Logistics Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at Thanavan Building, No.23/24 Infantry Road, next to Vijaya Bank, Bangalore – 560001.

 

Also at:  B1/A19, II Floor, Mohan Cooperative, New Delhi – 110044.

 

Also at:  Plot No.60, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula, Haryana – 134113.

…. Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

 

Dinesh Kumar Malhotra, B-173, Kendriya Vihar, Opposite Auto Market, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

 

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Amber Sachdeva, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Sahil Singla, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2020, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/884/2019, in the following terms:-

“9]  In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

i]   to pay Rs.96,902/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present consumer complaint i.e. 28.8.2019 till realization.

ii]  to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

iii] to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10]  This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Respondent/Complainant that he is a registered manufacturer & trader of pharmaceutical products and operates from Chandigarh. On 24.6.2019, Respondent/Complainant hired the services of Appellants/Opposite Parties on payment of consideration to deliver a consignment to his consignee at Mumbai. The Respondent/Complainant gave invoice No.000072 alongwith Eway bill of Rs.96,902/- to the agent of the Appellants/Opposite Parties for delivering the consignment at Mumbai. However, in the first week of July 2019, the consignee informed the Respondent/Complainant regarding non receipt of the consignment.  On enquiry made, Appellants/Opposite Parties lingered on the matter on one or the other pretext. Subsequent thereto, Respondent/Complainant requested the consignee to visit office of Appellants/ Opposite Parties at Mumbai and on his visit on 8.7.2019 the consignment was found in highly damaged condition and not in a saleable position and thus refused to take delivery. Photographs were also taken. Claim was preferred, but the, same was rejected by the Appellants/Opposite Parties. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

3.      In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, the Appellants/Opposite Parties admitted the fact that consignment was entrusted to them and on complaint received, the boxes containing medicines were found pressed, but, the medicine in the boxes was safe. There was no damage to the packaging of the medicine boxes. Maintained, if the Respondent/ complainant had any issue with respect to damage, claim could have been preferred to the Insurance Company as the Appellants/Opposite Parties happen to be insured on the date of dispatch of the consignment.  On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellant/ Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of the Respondent/Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

5.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties.

 

6.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

 

7.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

9.      There is no denial of the fact that Respondent/complainant had hired the services of the Appellants/Opposite Parties on 24.6.2019 to deliver a consignment to his consignee at Mumbai. When the said delivery was delayed, the Consignee enquired from the office of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties located at Mumbai and found the consignment highly damaged and the medicines were not in saleable position as water had soaked in the boxes as well as the medicines. While relying on the Photographs (Annexure C-7) the Ld. Lower Commission held that the boxes were damaged and possibility of water soaking in could not be ruled out. 

 

10.      The Appellants/Opposite Parties while placing reliance on the photographs (Annexure P-4) asserted that the medicines were safe.  However, on scrutiny of the same, Ld. Lower Commission observed that there appears to be some spots on the strips of the medicines. Neither the Appellants/Opposite Parties physically produced the medicine strips or boxes before the Ld. Lower Commission for inspection nor obtained any certificate from any pharmaceutical company to the effect medicines were safe and were in saleable condition.

 

11.      Furthermore, the Appellants/Opposite Parties took a defence that they had obtained the Transport Operators Liability Policy (Annexure P-5) which shows the period of insurance was from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019 and the date of damage of the consignment/boxes was June 2019 i.e. within the insurance period and the maximum limit of liability was Rs.15,00,00,000/-. According to the Appellants/ OPs, the insurance company was a necessary party and the claim could have been preferred by the Respondent/complainant against them.  After having gone through the contents of Annexure P-5 the Ld. Lower Commission observed that the insured’s name was Spoton Logistics Private Ltd. i.e. the Appellants/ Opposite Parties and as per the policy, the Respondent/complainant was not a contracting party.  A perusal of the note appended in the policy at Page 26 shows that in the event of loss, the Insurance Company had undertaken to indemnify the insured and the person insured in the policy is M/s Spoton Logistics Private Ltd. i.e. the Appellants/ Opposite Parties.  Thus, the Respondent/complainant was clearly not a contracting party and the liability, if any, of the loss was to be claimed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties from the Insurance Company. The Appellants/Opposite Parties are therefore, certainly liable to make good the loss caused to the complainant. It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

12.      Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the present case, we are of the concerted opinion that the adjudication on the merits of the case has taken place since there was apparent deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant/Opposite Parties. In nutshell, the Ld. Lower Commission had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and allowed the Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

 

13.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we do not see any strain of perversity discernible from the order which may occasion to vitiate the same. We are, therefore, dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed. The order of Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

14.      In view of the present Appeal being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

16.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

04^th July, 2022                                

Sd/-

                                  (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”