Complainant Rajesh Sharma has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (in short OPs) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short,  The C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.34,360/- alongwith interest @ 12% PA towards loss of goods, booked by the O.P. and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages caused due to deficiency of services and unfair trade practices on the part of the O.P. O.P. be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is partner of M/s.Golden Construction Dalhousie Road, Pathankot and is dealing in contractual works with defence sector at Pathankot. He purchased goods for a sum of Rs.34,360/- from M/s.Minar Engineering Company G.T.Road Bye Pass Maqsudan Jallandhar O.P.No.3 vide bill dated 12.9.2016 and the payment was made on 6.9.2016 and 12.09.2016 for a sum of  Rs.32,000/- and Rs.2360/- respectively. The said goods were sent vide receipt No.GR No.59666 dated 12.9.2016 by O.P.No.3 through O.P.No.1 as O.P.No.1 is running goods Carrier Company and an amount of Rs.120/- was paid as freight charges. Thereafter he was telephonically informed by O.P.No.3 regarding the goods sent through O.P.No.1 and will be delivered in a day or two at Pathankot. After waiting about a week he again called the O.P.No.1 and enquired about the status of the goods sent to them by O.P.No.3 to which it was informed by the O.P.No.1 that the goods have been sent and will be delivered at Pathankot at the office through M/s.Thakur Goods Carrier Pathankot, O.P.No.2 as the consignment booked by O.P.No.1 for Pathankot are delivered through O.P.No.2. He visited the office of O.P.No.2 and enquired about his consignment but till date no such consignment has reached their office at Pathankot. He has further pleaded that he is dealing supply to MES and the said items were of immense necessity for the work being carried out at site and due to non availability of the items enquired by him, he again ordered the said items from O.P.No.3 and again purchased the same goods and spent a sum of Rs.34,360/- vide bill dated 30.09.2016 and again the payment was made through RTGS to the opposite party no.3 on 3.10.2016. Thereafter, he have been continuously calling the opposite party no.1 and asked about the status of the consignment sent on 12.9.2016, but the O.P.No.1 and 2 have been dealing the matter on one false pretext or the other. He again visited the office of O.P.No.2 and the owner of O.P.No.2 after going through their records told him that the said consignment sent through O.P.No.1 has not reached their office otherwise the same would have been delivered by them to him. The O.P.No.2 further gave him in writing that goods have not been received by O.P.No.2 from the O.P.No.1. A legal notice dated 28.11.2016 was issued to the O.P.No.1 but despite receiving the notice have not taken any action and also have not bothered to reply the legal notice. Thus, this act is clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 

3.          Notice issued to the opposite party no.1 and 2 have not been received back. Case called several times, but none has come present on behalf of opposite party no.1 and 2. Thus, the opposite party no.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.

4.      Notice issued to the opposite parties. Sh.Darshan Singh Manager of O.P.No.3 appeared  and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the  complainant has unnecessarily impleaded the O.P.No.3  as a party so the complaint against O.P. is liable to be dismissed; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P.; the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. as no cause of action has ever been accrued to the complainant against the O.P.No.3. On merits, it was submitted that as per the direction of the complainant the consignment was booked with opposite party no.1 for transportation.  The booking GR/LR was sent to the complainant by courier post which was duly received by the complainant.  All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs. Thereafter Manager of O.P.No.3 appeared only on 5.4.2018. After 5.4.2018 he did not appear in the Forum and ultimately on 11.5.2018 O.P.No.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte

5.          Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence.  

6.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file very minutely.

7.     After taking into consideration the contents of the complaint as well as perusal of the documents, it reveals that the story narrated by the complainant is fully established because the complainant has brought on the file Photostat copy of the invoice, whereby the goods purchased, the bill Ex.C-4 amounting to Rs.34,360/- and the said bill No. is 82 dated 12.9.2016 and the items mentioned in the said bill Ex.C-3, were sent to Pathankot through carrier of opposite party no.1 and when the said articles were handed over to opposite party no.1, they issued the receipt bearing  G.R.No.A-59 666 dated 12.9.2016 for Rs.120/-. Despite delivering the said items to opposite party no.1, the same never reached at the destination i.e. at Pathankot in the premises of Golden Construction Company and for that purpose, the complainant made number of requests and visits at the office of opposite party no.2, who is situated in the local limits of Pathankot, as opposite party no.1 told complainant that goods will be delivered to them by Thakur Goods Carrier O.P.No.2 as the same has been sent to them by o O.P.No.1. As on repeated requests and visits by complainant, O.P.No.2 has given in writing that they have not received any consignment bearing G.R.No.A-59 666 and as such they cannot deliver the same to complainant. The same is produced as Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 on the file.

8.      Ex.C-8, which is a document signed by Proprietor of Thakur Goods O.P.No.2  is dated 20.8.2016 and complainant had to purchase same items again from O.P.No.3 for extra amount is proved by Ex.C-5 wherein the same goods are again purchased for Rs.34,360/-. Ex.C-6 and C-7 prove the payment of earlier purchased goods and the payment of goods purchased for the second time is proved by Ex.C-11 which is Bank Account Statement in which on 3.10.2016 again the same amount i.e. Rs.34,360/- is paid to Minaar Engineer Co. i.e. O.P.No.3. This document clearly establishes that the earlier ordered goods were not delivered to complainant; that’s why he had to purchase the same goods again after short interval and after making inquiry of the lost goods. Even after the service of legal notice dated 28.11.2016 and its postal receipts Ex.C-12, Ex.C13 and C14, the O.Ps did not bother even to reply and ultimately the instant complaint filed, which itself proves that there is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of O.P.No.1 as the goods handed over to O.P.No.1 for sending to Pathankot has been lost on transit, if so then, O.P.No.1 is liable to indemnify the complainant for all purpose. As there is no deficiency proved on part of O.P.No.2 and 3, they are exempted from any liability. Accordingly, we reach to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and thus we partly accept the complaint of the complainant and order the o O.P.No.1 to make good the loss suffered by complainant by paying the amount of lost goods i.e. Rs.34,360/- and also to pay him Rs.7,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. Entire compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which O.P.No.1 will be liable to pay interest @ 9% P.A. on the entire awarded amount from the date of orders till its realization.

9.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 ANNOUNCED:                   (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 June 24, 2019.                                Member                      Presiding Member

 MK