West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/30/2019

Sri Lakshan Chowhan, S/O- Late Mahesh Chowhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Engineer and Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Dakshin Dinajpur - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

  The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Party claiming Principal amount Rs.10,000/-, compensation Rs. 50,000/- + Litigation cost Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for illegal harassment and interest @10.02% from 01.12.2017.

           The fact of the case, in brief, is that the on 01.12.2017 the Opposite Party by his letter vide memo.no.DM/DD/ADMN- 30/997 engaged the Complainant to carry some electrical articles from Siliguri to Balurghat and carrying charge was fixed Rs.39,500/-. As per order of the Opposite Party, the Complainant carried the said electrical articles by his truck bearing no. WB- 73A/2888 from Siliguri to Balurghat. After receiving the said articles, the Opposite Party took dilatory tactics for payment to the Complainant. The Complainant, several times requested the Opposite Party for payment of the carrying charge but the Opposite Party did not pay heed. The Complainant also sent an advocate letter dated 28.09.2018 demanding the said carrying charge but in vain. Thereafter, the Complainant moved before the DLSA, Balurghat. Having received the notice of DLSA, Balurghat deposited Rs.29,600/- in the Bank account of the Complainant but did not appear before SLSA, Balurghat. The principal amount of Rs.10,000/- is still due on the part of the Opposite Party. Having no alternative, the Complainant has filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party appeared before this commission and filed his written version.

 By filing written version, the opposite Party has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint. The defense case, in brief, is that the Complainant being the proprietor of M/S Chowhan Enterprise had been engaged fot transportation of single phase meters along with seals from Siliguri Zonal Store, WBSEDCL to Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat Divisional Store vide PO No.5600000527 dated 01.12.2017 having value of Rs.39,500/- including all taxes. The Complainant not only failed to complete the said work but also caused pecuniary loss to the Opposite Party because the Opposite Party had to send its own vehicle to take the delivery of the said materials in another day. For that reason a penalty was levied upon the Complainant which was subsequently deducted from the bill of the Complainant to the tune of Rs.9020/-.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.  

To prove his case, the complainant has filed the following documents in support of his case

(i) The photo copy of letter dated 26.02.2019 addressed to the secretary, DLSA, Balurghat

 (ii) The photo copy of advocate letter dated 28.09.2018 sent to Divisional Engineer, WBSEDCL.

(iii)  The photo copy of Draft copyby WBSEDCL dated 01.12.2017.

(iv)   The photo copy of Draft copy  dated 01.12.2017 of Rs.39,500/-

(v)   The photo copy of Gate Pass of Vehicle no.WB-73A/2888 issued by WBSEDCL.

             On the other hand, the Opposite Party has filed the following document in support of his defense  

           (i) Computerized copy of statement of fact.

           (ii) Photo copy of letter of Complainant to the O.P. 

           (iii) Photo copy of bill dated18.09.2017.

           (iv) Photo copy of Internal posting document of O.P.

         In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration

 

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party?

 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

                                                                  DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

          We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Party at length. We have also gone through the written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the documents produced by both the parties as evidence.        

          At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the Complainant has completed the work as allotted but it is the Opposite Party who failed to pay the carrying charges in full as agreed in between the parties. An principal amount of Rs.10,000/- is still due on the part of the Opposite Party. So, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. So, the petition should be allowed.  

               On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties also discussed his defense case and submitted that the Complainant has failed to complete the delivery of the stipulated numbers of meters as was allotted from the Zonal Office, Siliguri, WBSEDCL. For that reason a penalty was levied upon the Complainant and a sum of Rs.9020/- was deducted from the bill of the Complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed.

             Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

 

Point No. 1  

 

          On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Complainant and the Opposite Party came to an agreement and the Opposite Party engaged the Complainant to  carry some electrical articles from Siliguri WBSEDCL to Balurghat, WBSEDCL and a fixed carrying charge was fixed in between them.  By this way the Complainant has became consumer to the Opposite Party under section (2) of the C.P. Act,1986                     Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant. 

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3 

 

         Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.  

        On perusal of the documents produced by both the parties, it is clear that the Opposite Party engaged the Complainant vide his order memo no.DM/DD/Admn-30/997 dated 01.12.2017 for transportation of single phase meters and plastic seals from Siliguri Zonal Store WBSEDCL to Dakshin Dinajpur Divisional Store. It also appears from the order that 1.000 single phase meters were have to be transported from Siliguri Store, WBSEDCL to Dakshin  Dinajpur Divisional Store and the total carrying charge amount was fixed at Rs.39,500/-.

        Now, from the Gate Pass issued by Zonal Office Siliguri, WBSEDCL it appears that in the vehicle no.WB-73A/2888 the following articles were loaded on 06.12.2017 

1. Single ph meter (5-30) A             2000 nos. 

2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

3. 3 ph (10-60)A                                364 nos. 

4. 3 ph (20-100)A                                20 nos.

          From these two documents it appears that 1000 pieces of single phase meter was ordered to be brought from Siliguri Store to Balurghat Store of WBSEDCL but the said vehicle brought more than that order. Apart from it, the Complainant is a carrier only. The supplier of the materials is the Siliguri Store, WBSEDCL. If the materials are less than the requisite order, then it is not the fault of the Complainant. So, the allegation of the Opposite Party that all materials as ordered was not transported and for the rest articles, the Opposite Party was compelled to bring by another vehicle, is not believable.  It is the further plea of the Opposite Party that for that a reason a penalty of Rs.9020/- was levied upon the Complainant and the said amount was deducted from the fixed charge of Rs.39,500/- as agreed between them. 

        From a certificate dated 16.10.2018  given by the Divisional Manager, Balurghat Division, WBSEDCL on the reverse page of the bill it has been mentioned that  The transportation work has been done partly instead of full allotted materials by ZM office so penalty charges may be included properly. The partly received materials entered in ERP QSL vide Mat Doc. 7301210994,7301210997,7301210995 and 7301210996.    

       It will not be out of place to say that the said certificate has been given after one year of the unloading of the materials by the Complainant at the Store of WBSEDCL, Balurghat.  Apart from it, the Opposite Party has failed to produce the ERP QSL ( Register ) before this Commission in support of his certificate. Simplicitor stating that the transportation was done partly, is not believable. So, we are compelled to presume that the certificate given after lapse of one year, is afterthought and fabricated and not belivable.

          Further, the Opposite Party has failed to produce the document or any evidence to show that such numbers of single phase meters and plastic seals have not been transported by the Complainant from Siliguri Store to Balurghat Store of WBSEDCL.

          Again, whatever be the amount payable to the Complainant for his work was required to pay just after the completion of the work but the Opposite Party did not do so. The Opposite Party paid Rs.29,500/- after deducting Rs.790/- for TDS and Rs.9020/- as penalty from Rs.39,5000/-,

 to the Complainant after lapse of one year when the Complainant moved before the DLSA, Judge Court Balurghat.   

          Here, we think that the conduct of the Opposite Party is unfair, negligent and deficiency in service.        

         In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a bona-fide consumer to the Opposite Party and there is negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

Accordingly, point no.2 and 3 are decided in favour of the Complainant.

Hence, it is

                                                         O R D E R E D

         

          That the Consumer Case No. 30 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part but with cost. 

           The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.9020/- which has been deducted as penalty along with an interest @ 8% till full realization to the Complainant within 45 (Forty Five) days by issuing an account payee cheque from the date of passing of this order.

          The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost by issuing account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law.

             Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.