BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.91 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 04.02.2020

      Date of Decision:04.12.2024

1.       Kapil Jain, Proprietor M/s Kapil Dev Sanjay Kumar Jain, aged          about 34 years, resident of N. K. 124, Charanjit Pura, Jalandhar.

2.       M/s Kapil Dev Sanjay Kumar Jain, Office at N. K. 124, Charanjit     Pura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

Parmar Road Transport Company, H. O. Gulab Devi Hospital Link Road, Workshop Chowk, Jalandhar through its authorized agent, legal representative, or manager.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                                      (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       None for the Complainants.

                   Sh. Kunal Kalia, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that for the purpose of earning his livelihood, the complainant is doing the business of trading tea under the name and style of M/s Kapil Dev Sanjay Kumar Jain, having its office at N. K. 124, Charanjit Pura, Jalandhar. The complainant had taken the services of OP on 02.02.2019 for dispatching 20 bags of tea from Jalandhar to Amritsar. The OP has booked a consignment of 20 bags to deliver at said address. The 20 bags have been sent at transport on 02.02.2019 received by transport company and acknowledgement of receiving goods has been issued. It is in the form of bilty. The complainant has promised to pay Rs.570/- only as due consideration on delivery of full consignment of 20 bags as agreed between parties. The OP has promised to deliver the consignment at its earliest opportunity and he delivered the consignment on the same day. The receiver of the goods i.e. Nahar Traders check the goods carefully and found the fact that there was short of delivery of 3 bags of tea. This fact is told to the complainant by receiver who immediately informed this fact about short of delivery to the OP over the phone. On being informed, the OP discloses the fact that 3 bags have been lost in transit by their truck driver. Truck driver admit this fact by signing on bill that he had delivered 17 bags. Full value of consideration is Rs.88,637/- only as mentioned on the bill. The OP had admitted his negligence in providing services. The OP said the complainant to make a claim note for the loss of 3 bags. A duly signed claim note is provided to OP on 05.02.2019 by complainant. The amount of 3 bags are Rs.15,015/-. The complainant said the OP to give receiving of it on duplicate copy, but the OP refused to do it but admit the claim. As the claim of Rs.15,015/- only has been admitted by OP in accordance of this, he agree to pay Rs.15,015/- in two installments. The OP has paid Rs.5000/- only on 01.03.2019 through cheque. After payment of first installment, the OP used to make delay in paying remaining amount. After that humble repeated request by complainant, the OP asked for granting him some time for paying money. A legal notice has been served upon the OP on 22.10.2019 to pay his debt, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay remaining unpaid amount of Rs.10,015/- with interest @ 2% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and same has not been properly verified as required under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is vague and evasive, as no legal notice was ever served by the OP before filing the present complaint. It is further averred that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint, as the matter in this complaint required lengthy examination and cross examination of the evidence and as such, it cannot be tried in summary proceedings before this Tribunal and only Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said matter. It is further averred that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as provided under Consumer Protection Act as the OP did not receive any consideration/freight charges for the services provided to the complainant. It is further averred that the complaint under reply is a gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole motive of pressurizing and harassing the answering OP to submit to the unreasonable and mischievous demands of the complainant. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Commission and has not approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the consignment has been booked vide GR No.5583 dated 02.02.2018 and the complainant paid freights charges of the said consignment of Rs.570/-, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has alleged that he is running the business of trading tea. He had taken the services of OP for dispatching of 20 bags of Tea from Jalandhar to Amritsar vide bilty Ex.C-1. Rs.570/- were to be paid on delivery of full consignment of 20 bags and receipt has been proved as Ex.C-2. It has been alleged that when the goods were delivered, it was found that there was shortage of delivery of 3 bags of tea and immediately this fact was informed to the OP over phone. The OP disclosed that 3 bags have been lost in transit. The complainant has proved on record the copy of the bill Ex.C-3. The complainant had sought the amount of 3 bags as Rs.15,015/- and the copy of the claim note has been proved as Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5.

7.                The OP has raised the objection that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is running the business of trading tea for profit purposes and is commercial in nature, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. It has further been argued by the OP that one tea bag was damaged and the matter was settled. The OP has already made the payment of Rs.5000/- to the complainant by way of cheque and no amount is due rather the complainant has failed to make the payment of freight charges of Rs.570/-. Therefore, there is no deficiency.

8.                It is admitted fact that 20 bags were booked by the complainant to be delivered from Jalandhar to Amritsar. Ex.C-1 is the copy of bilty showing that consignment of 20 bags was booked with the OP. Ex.C-2 is the receipt of Rs.570/-, which were to be paid to the driver after the delivery of goods. Ex.C-3 is the tax invoice on which it has been hand written that 3 bags lost, 2 bags 38 kgs each and one bag 26 kg as told by the driver. This document has been signed by Manpreet Singh. Another hand written calculation has been filed on record by the complainant Ex.C-4, which shows that the complainant has suffered loss of amount Rs.15,015/-. Ex.C-5 is the account statement showing that the amount of Rs.5000/- has been credited in the account of the complainant on 02.03.2019. Perusal of Ex.C-3 shows that three bags have been stated to be lost, out of it 2 bags of 38 kg each and one bag 26 kg each, but as per this tax invoice, no bag was of 26 kg. The bags underlined by the complainant are of 38 kg each and one was 36 kg, there was no bag of 26 kgs as alleged by the complainant. The amount of Rs.5000/- was deposited in the account of the complainant on 02.03.2019. The complainant in his complaint has alleged that the OP has admitted to pay amount of Rs.15,015/- in two installments, but there is no document on the file to show that the complainant has ever agreed to pay this amount in two installments. The complainant has not come to the Court to further show any deficiency or further show any document which may prove that one bag of 26 kg was lost, when it is not found in the tax invoice Ex.C-3. The complainant has not come in the Commission to prove that the OP has ever agreed to pay the amount in installments or any compromise was ever effected between the parties or no compromise was executed as alleged by the OP in the written statement. So, no deficiency in service has been proved and the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

04.12.2024         Member                          Member              President