State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neeraj Jaiswal vs Wilson Sandhu Logistic Ltd on 12 September, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1036/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Aug 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/02/2019 in Case No. C/15/2011 of District Sant Ravidas Nagar) 1. Neeraj Jaiswal S/O Madan lal Gupt Sakin Mohalla Sadar Khan Chauri Road Bhadohi Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Wilson Sandhu Logistic Ltd (Registered Head Ofice) No. 2 Swaroop Chamber Opposite A a I Import Ware House SAhara Pipe Line Road (Isht) Mumbai 400099 India ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/384/2019 ( Date of Filing : 18 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/02/2019 in Case No. C/15/2011 of District Sant Ravidas Nagar) 1. Wilson Sandhu Logistics (Indiia)Ltd Through its Authorized Representative Reg. head Office 2 Swaroop Chamber Sahar Pipe Line Road Opposite Aai import Warehouse Andheri East SAhar Pipe Line Road Mumbai Maharashtra 400099 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Neeraj jaiswal S/O Madanlal Gupta Mohalla bazar SArdar Khan Chauri Road Bhadohi Sant Ravidas Nagar U.P. 221401 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 12 Sep 2022 Final Order / Judgement
RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2019 (Against the judgment/order dated 21-02-2019 in Complaint Case No. 15/2011 of the District Consumer Commission, Bhadohi
01. Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited Reg. Head Office: 2, Swaroop Chamber Opposite AAI Import Warehouse Andheri East, Sahar Pipe Line Road, Mumbai Maharashtra 400099
02. Wilson Sandhu Logistics Bida Building, Station Road Bhadohi Sant Ravidas Nagar District Bhadohi Uttar Pradesh 221401 ... Appellants V/s
01. Neeraj Jaiswal, S/o Madanlal Gupta Mohalla Bazar Sardar Khan Chauri Road, Bhadohi Sant Ravidas Nagar District Bhadohi (U.P.) 221401 Bank of India, Station Road, Bhadohi Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi District (U.P.) Through Branch Manager ...Respondents AND APPEAL NO. 1036 OF 2019 (Against the judgment/order dated 21-02-2019 in Complaint Case No. 15/2011 of the District Consumer Commission, Bhadohi Neeraj Jaiswal, S/o Madan Lal Gupta Sakin Mohalla Sardar Khan Chauri Road, Bhadohi Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi ...Appellant V/s
01.Wilson Sandhu Logistics Limited Regd. Head Office: No.2, Swaroop Chamber Opposite AAI Import Warehouse Sahar Pipe Line Road,(Isht) Mumbai-400099 Maharashtra 400099 :2: Bank of India, Station Road, Bhadohi Through Branch Manager
03.Wilson Sandhu Logistics Bida Building, Station Road Bhadohi, Sant Ravidas Nagar District Bhadohi ...Respondents BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellant. : Dr. Zulfikar Ali Khan, Advocate for Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited & Wilson Sandhu Logistics For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate for Complainant.
Dated : 13-10-2022 JUDGMENT PER MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT These two appeals have been filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the common judgment and order dated 21-02-2019 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bhadohi in Complaint Case No. 15/2011 Neeraj Jaiswal V/s Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited and others, as such both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.
Appeal No. 384/2019 has been filed by Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra and Wilson Sandhu Logistics, Bhadohi who are opposite parties no.1 and 3 of complaint.
Appeal No. 1036/2019 has been preferred by Neeraj Jaiswal who is complainant of complaint for enhancement of compensation.
Vide impugned judgment and order dated 21-02-2019 the District Consumer Commission has allowed complaint partially and has passed the following order:-
''परिवाद विपक्षी संख्या-1 व 3 के विरूद्ध आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है। चूंकि 1,90,000/-रू0 परिवादी का वर्ष 2010 में विदेशी ग्राहक द्वारा डिडक कर लिया गया था तब कारपेट क कीमत अदा की गयी थी यह धनराशि व उस कटौती की तिथि से 3 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से :3: अदायगी की तिथि तक विपक्षी सीपिंग एजेन्ट से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा। इसके अतिरिक्त परिवादी को व्यापारिक क्षति के रूप में 1,00,000/-रू0 इम्पोर्ट इन्सेन्टिव के मद में 1,00,000/-रू0 तथा मानसिक क्षति 50,000/-रू0 एव 10,000/-रू0 खर्चा मुकदमा परिवादी को विपक्षी संख्या-1 व 3 संयुक्त व पृथकतत: एक माह में अदा करें। ऐसा न करने पर सम्पूर्ण प्रतिकर की धनराशि मु0 4,50,000/-रू0 मय 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज की दर से अदायगी की तिथि तक परिवादी को विपक्षी संख्या-1 व 3 अदा करे।'' In Appeal No. 384/2019 Dr. Zulfikar Ali Khan, learned Counsel for appellants/opposite parties No.01 and 03 appeared and Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for respondent/complainant appeared.
In Appeal No. 1036/2019 Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for appellant/complainant appeared and Dr. Zulfikar Ali Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents no. 01 and 03 appeared.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as record of the cases.
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is the manufacturer and exporter of carpets and the appellants are the shipping agents. The complainant is doing carpet exporting business from last five years and in last five years have exported carpets hundred times through appellants/opposite parties No.01 and 03. The complainant states that before this transaction, carpet export shipping work was properly done by the appellants/opposite parties and there was no objection or complaint. The complainant gave his shipment under Invoice No.82 dated 06-08-2010 to the opposite party for customs clearance at Mumbai and the formalities were completed on the same day. The consignment was stuffed in container and it was handed over to Hamburg Sud Shipping Line on 06-08-2010 as instructed by complainant. The complainant was informed by opposite party in this regard by e-mail on 07-08-2010 and also by phone.
On 07-08-2010 two Panamanian cargo ships collided off the Mumbai coast causing an oil spill from one of the vessels. Due to which all the operational work at JNPT Mumbai harbour was suspended. This news was widely circulated in different news papers and TV Channels. The container :4: was planned for vessel Thuringia express ETD (Sailing Date) 09-08-2010 but due to the collision of two ships on 07-08-2010 said vessel omitted and the complainant was informed on 09-08-2010 regarding ships collision. On 11-08-2010 partial operations were resumed at Mumbai Port Trust It has been stated in the complaint that the Carpet for shipping to Hamburg Port, Germany was received from complainant firm Shine Orient Teppich on 14-08-2010 at Custom's clearance yard at Mumbai. That being a Custom agent on the very same day dated 14-08-2010, custom clearance was done. On 17-08-2010 container was received from Hapag Lloyd Shipping line and on 17-08-2010 carpet consignment of Invoice No. 83 were stuffed in 20 FCL container planned for Vessel Bavaria Express ETD 23-08-2010, than it was handed over to Hapag Lloyd shipping line. The complainant was informed about the rescheduling of shipping. The consignment which was scheduled to go on 17-08-2010 could not be loaded on vssel because Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Mumbai does not allow to load the vessels at Mumbai due to restrictions of 11.3 Meter. So no vessel was available for sailing to Hamburg Port, Germany at Port. On 18-08-2010 the opposite party requested shipping line to load the consignment in next schedule vessel.
The next vessel was scheduled to come on 23-08-2010 and on 23-08-2010 at 18.30 hrs, the vessel Bavaria Express reached at Mumbai Harbour and both the containers of Invoice No.82 and Invoice No.83 carpet consignment goods were loaded on it for shipping to Hamburg Port, Germany. The shipping related documents B/L were received only after 10 days from the date of vessel sailing from Hamburg Sud Shipping line and immediately Bill of Landing and other shipping documents related to Invoice No. 82 were sent to complainant banker as per his instruction on 04-09-2010 and the same was received by complainant Banker, opposite party No.2 on 06-09-2010. The shipping documents relating to invoice No. 83 was received after 12 days from the Hapag Lloyd shipping line, and the same was dispatched to complainant banker on 06-09-2010 from company Bombay office and complainant was informed by opposite party no.01. The complainant alleged in his complaint that the opposite parties No. 01 and 03 with intention to cause harm and loss to the complainant they send the :5: documents directly to the bank instead of sending it to the complainant and the bank gave these documents to the complainant on 09-09-2010 and the complainant goods were reached at the Port of Foreign Buyer on 11-09-2010.
The Bill of landing-shipping documents of invoice No.83 was received by complainant banker on 09-09-2010. The complainant bank in collusion with complainant released the shipping documents to complainant without releasing the freight charges of the opposite party that is Rs.1,72,618.58. The Vessel Bavaria Express reached at Hamburg Port, Germany on 11-09-2010 at 21.30 hrs and on the same day documents were received by consignee, which was sent by the bank. The containers were unloaded from the vessel and kept at custom yard of the Hamburg Port, Germany. The consignee got his import custom clearance completed through his custom agent on 13-09-2010. The consignee Foreign Buyer received the goods from port under Invoice Nos. 82 and 83 without paying any demurrage charge.
Consequently feeling aggrieved by the action of opposite parties the complainant has filed consumer complaint against the opposite parties before the District Consumer Commission for the deficiency in service The complainant filed consumer complaint against the opposite parties No.01 and 03 before the District Consumer Commission, Bhadohi for deficiency of service and for causing commercial loss to the complainant stating in his complaint that there is loss caused to the complainant due to negligence of the opposite parties (i) by sending the documents late and instead of sending it to complainant, directly send it to Bank, which caused loss Euro 3000 that is to say Rs.1,90,000/- (ii) by not getting complete documents till date, due to which Govt. Subsidy loss of Rs.1,00,000/- (iii) complete commercial business loss due to split up of business relation with customers due to negligence of opposite parties, loss of 3,00,000 (iv) due to mental agony effect on business, loss of Rs.1,00,000/- So total Rs.6,90,000/- was claimed by the complainant before the District Consumer Commission.
The opposite parties no.1 and 3 have filed their written statement :6: before the District Consumer Commission and opposed complaint of the complainant.
In written statement it has been stated on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 3 that there was no delay on the part of the opposite parties in sending the documents to the complainant's banker as instructed by the complainant himself to send the documents directly to his banker and take freight charges from banker. The opposite parties further requested for release of their freight charges of Rs.1,72,618.58 either through opposite party no.2 Bank or through complainant. The complainant has filed the complaint on false and frivolous statements.
In the written statement it has been further stated by the opposite parties that the complainant does not come under the definition of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the complainant is doing commercial business.
The opposite party No.2 Bank of India has also filed its written statement before the District Consumer Commission in which it has stated by the bank that it has accepted the receipt of shipping documents on 09-09-2010.
The complainant has filed his rejoinder affidavit as well as evidence affidavit before the learned District Consumer Commision. The complainant has also filed the written arguments before the learned District Consumer Commission.
The opposite parties No. 01 and 03 have also filed their evidence affidavit with documents before the learned District Consumer Commission. The opposite parties No. 01 and 03 have also filed their written arguments before the learned District Consumer Commission.
The learned District Consumer Commission after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties and after having gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as materials available on record allowed the complainant partially against the opposite parties No. 01 and 03.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
In Appal No. 384/2010 the learned Counsel for the appellants has :7: argued that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is bad, illegal and arbitrary and has been passed without application of mind. The learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly appreciated the facts, circumstances and evidences available on record and thus committed material irregularity which goes to the root of the matter.
Learned Counel for the appellants has further argued that the learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly and perversely considered the evidences and committed gross illegality by coming to the conclusion that the appellants have delayed in sending the Bill of Lading and other shipping documents and had committed deficiency in service.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the complainant is doing commercial business and in that situation does not come under the definition of consumer.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that District Consumer Commission has wrongly held that definitely complainant is doing carpet business but here dispute is not related to the business but shipping agent which after getting custom clearance send the goods to foreign and for that he takes the shipping charges. So this is not a business dispute and on this basis it cannot be said that complainant does not come under the definition of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned District Forum has commited gross illegality by recording that appellants are shipping agent, but appellants are only custom agents and shipping lines are Hapag Llyod line Hamburg Sud line. Learned District Consumer Commission has commited gross illegality by grating the relief to the complainant which is even not prayed by complainant i.e. delay in reaching the consignment. There was no delay in sending the bill of lading as the item received by the foreign buyer on 14-09-2010 itself.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the complainant is exporter and manufacturer of carpets and is doing commercial business. The appellants are custom agents for the complainant. The complainant has filed the false consumer complaint against the appellants. The complainant has :8: accepted the commercial transaction between complainant and appellants in his complaint at number of places.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has further argued that the learned District Consumer Commission has allowed the claim of the complainant without going into the merit of the case and passed the impugned order.
In Appal No. 1036/2019 the learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant has argued that the District Consumer Commission has passed the order considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences filed in support of the complaint case, even though failed to award Rs.6,90,000/- towards loss and compensation to the complainant/appellant.
Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant has argued that the learned District Consumer Commission has although considered the contentions of the complainant and passed the impugned judgment and order without allowing the prayers made in complaint case which is illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law. The District Consumer Commission has awarded very meagre amount against the loss suffered by him and compensation, hence it needs to be enchanced by this Commission in the interest of justice.
Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant has further argued that the complainant does the work of export of carpet and the opposite parties are the shipping agent through which the carpets are being exported and for last five years he is doing same work.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that in the present case the complainant who had sent the carpets through invoice No. 82 on 25-07-2010 and carpets through invoice No. 83 on 03-08-2010 to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not send the related documents to complainant when the goods were loaded on the ship instead they sent the concerned documents to State Bank of India which is against the agreement entered into between the parties. The opposite parties have violated the aforesaid agreement by not sending the documents straight way to complainant, thus opposite parties have commited gross deficiency in service.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and the submissions of Counsel for the respective parties and perused the material evidence :9: available on record.
The facts of the case are mentioned by this Court hereinabove and therefore the same are not in dispute. The complainant Sri Neeraj Jaiswal has admittedly sent the carpet through Invoice No. 82 and another Invoice No. 83 dated 25-07-2010 and 03-08-2010 respectively. However, the fact reveals that the consignment of the carpet stuffed in container and was handed over to Hamburg Sud Shipping Line in pursuance of the instructions of the complainant and on the very next date i.e. on 07-08-2010 two Panamanian cargo ships collided off the Mumbai coast causing an oil spill from one of the vessels. On account of the said mishappening all operational wok at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Mumbai harbour was suspented. The aforesaid mishappening was duly communicated/informed to the complainant on 09-08-2010 and after due clearance the partial operations were resumed at Mumbai Port Trust after 11-08-2010. The carpets for shipping were received from the complainant firm on 14-08-2010 at custom's clearance yard at Mumbai through Shine Orient Teppich, a custom agent and on the very same day i.e. on 14-08-2010, custom clearance was done and the container was received from Hapag Lloyd Shipping line and on 17-08-2010 the carpet consignments of Invoice No. 83 were stuffed in 20 FCL container planned for Vessel Bavaria Express ETD on 23-08-2010. Thereafter it was handed over to Hapag Lloyd Shipping Line.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant M/s Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited that the complainant was duly informed about the rescheduling of the ship and the mishappening occurred at Mumbai Coast because of collision of two ships.
In the complaint the complainant Sri Neeraj Jaiswal has prayed for the following reliefs:-
बसदूर डिग्री बहक वादी खिलाफ प्रतिवादी नं0 1 व 3 बावत मु0 6,90,000/- रूपया हसब हिसाब जैल बावत नुकसानी व हैरानी व परेशानी एवं हर्जाना के रूप में वादी को प्रतिवादी नं0-1 व 3 से दिलाया जाय।
(ब) डिग्री हुकुम इम्तनाई दवामी बहक वादी खिलाफ प्रतिवादीगण :10: इस अम्र की सादिर फरमाई जाय कि प्रतिवादी नं0 2 प्रतिवादी नं0 1 व 3 का उपरोक्त मामले में जब तक प्रतिवादी नं0 1 व 3 वादी का सम्पूर्ण नुकसानी मूल्य मु0 6,90,000/- रूपया अदा न करे तब तक प्रतिवादी नं0 2 को प्रतिवादी नं0 1 का पैसा अदा न करे।
(स) खर्चा मुकदमा मुद्दालेहुम आयद हो।
तफसील हिसाब जैल डाकूमेन्ट देर से वादी को न भेजकर बैंक को भेजने के कारण 3,000/- यूरो यानि 1,90,000/- रूपये का नुकसान।
सम्पूर्ण डाकूकेंट आज तक न प्राप्त होने के कारण गर्मन्मेंट साब्सिडी नुकसान 1,00,000/- रूपया।
व्यावसायिक लापरवाही डाकूमेंट देर होने के कारण ग्राहक से सम्बन्ध बिगड़ने के कारण 3,00,000/- रूपया।
मानसिक तनाव के कारण 1,00,000/- रूपया।
कुल रूपया 6,90,000/- रूपया० As against the aforesaid relief prayed by the complainant the learned District Consumer Commission has examined the claim and the issues involved in the complaint in detail and has observed as follows:-
"यदि इसे सही भी माना जाए तो यह भी प्रमाणित है कि विपक्षी सीपिंग एजेण्ट के जरिये तत्काल, तत्परता से न तो सीपिंग लाइन दिनांक 11-08-2010 को क्लीयर होने के बाद भेजा गया और न तो दस्तावेज बिल आफ लेडिंग तत्काल, तत्परता से परिवादी को भेजा गया ईपी, कापी भी परिवादी को समय से नहीं भेजा गया इसइ प्रकार इस मामलें में निश्चित रूप से विपक्षी सीपिंग एजेण्ट के जरिये लापरवाही बरती गयी है और नियमों का उल्लंघन करके बिल आफ लेडिंग व अन्य दस्तावेज पहले सीधे परिवादी को नहीं भेजा गया जिससे माल विदेशी ग्राहक द्वारा बहुत विलम्ब से छुड़ाया गया जिससे निश्चित रूप से परिवादी के माल की कीमत मु0 1,90,000/-रू0 घट गयी और उसका व्यापारिक क्षति भी हम लोगों की राय में हुई तथा उसे केन्द्र सरकार की इन्सेन्टिव से भी वंचित होना पड़ा तथा मानसिक क्षति भी परिवादी को हुई।
1,90,000/-रू0 की क्षति के अतिरिक्त जो कि विरेशी ग्राहक ने :11: दस्तावेज साक्ष्य के जरिये माल की कीमत में से कटौती की है इस तथ्य का दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है परिवादी द्वारा इस बात का कोई निश्चित रूप से साक्ष्य नहीं दिया गया कि उसे भविष्य में कितने व्यापार की क्षति हुई उसका कथन है कि उसे 3,00,000/-रू0 भविष्य के व्यापार की क्षति हुई इस कथन का विपक्षी सीपिंग एजेण्ट के जरिये खण्डन किया गया है अत: उभय पक्षों के व्यापारिक स्थिति को देखते हुये हम लोगों की राय में परिवादी को इस कारपेट के विलम्ब से विदेश में पहुँचने के कारण उसे 1,00,000/-रू0 के निश्चित रूप से व्यापार की क्षति भविष्य में हुई इसके अतिरिक्त यह प्रमाणित है कि सीपिंग एजेण्ट ने ईपी कापी परिवादी को नहीं भेजा जिससे वह इसकी प्रति आर0बी0आई0 को नहीं भेज सका और उसे इम्पोर्ट इन्सेन्टिव 1,00,000/-रू0 की क्षति हुई इस मामलें में चूंकि यह लिटिगेशन लगभग 8 वर्षों से लम्बित है और उभय पक्षों के मध्य तनाव की स्थिति है निश्चित रूप से परिवादी को इसमें 50,000/-रू0 की मानसिक क्षति हम लोगों द्वारा दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित होगा तथा खर्चा मुकदमा 10,000/-रू0 भी परिवादी को विपक्षी सीपिंग एजेण्ट से मिलना चाहिए इस प्रकार यह कुल 4,50,000/-रू0 के लिए विपक्षी संख्या-1 व 3 के विरूद्ध परिवाद आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।"
The learned District Consumer Commission has thereafter observed as follows:-
"केस के तथ्यों से यह प्रमाणित है कि निश्चित रूप से परिवादी कारपेट का रोजगार करता है लेकिन इस मामलें में व्यापार का विवाद निहित नहीं है बल्कि सीपिंग एजेण्ट जो इस माल को कस्टम क्लीयरेन्स कराकर जहाज से विदेश भेजता है और इसके लिए वह सीपिंग क्लीयरेन्स का चार्ज लेता है अत: यह परिवादी के लिए व्यापारिक विधा का मामला नहीं है इस आधार पर यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि परिवादी धारा-2 (डी) उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत उपभोक्ता की परिभाषा में नहीं आता।
उपरोक्त चर्चा के आधार पर परिवाद आंशिक रूप से विपक्षी संख्या-1 व 3 के विरूद्ध स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।"
In view of the aforesaid finding the learned District Consumer :12: Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer under the provision of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. While entertaining the aforesaid complaint and while examining the entire issue the learned District Consumer Commission has allowed the complaint in part by directing the opposite party nos. 01 and 03 of the complaint i.e. Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited and Wilson Sandhu Logistics respectively to pay sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to the complainant which has been deducted by the foreign buyer against the amount paid to the complainant. The learned District Consumer Commission has further directed to pay simple interest at the rate of 3% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and further directed the opposite party Nos. 01 and 03 of the complaint jointly to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty for loss in business, Rs.1,00,000/- towards penalty under the heading of import incentive, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of the case i.e. total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. It is directed by the learned District Consumer Commission that in case if the opposite party Nos. 01 and 03 will fail to discharge their obligation they will be liable to pay the entire decretal amount as mentioned hereinabove at once alongwith 12% annual simple interest from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of payment.
Learned Counsel for the appellants Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited & Wilson Sandhu Logistics has submitted that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is bad and is not acceptable as there was no reason to hold the appellants guilty. He has submitted that the appellants are only providing the services and the delay occurred on account of unavoidable reasons which were beyond the control of the appellants, however, ignoring the same the learned District Consumer Commission has fixed the liability and imposed the liability of tax.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that in fact the complainant has suffered huge loss on account of delay on the part of the opposite party Nos. 01 and 03 of the complaint as they failed to discharge their duty and obliction to deliver the goods/carpet to the foreign buyer in a reasonable time for which the complainant has suffered the loss as the foreign buyer has deducted the money i.e. sum of Rs.1,90,000/- from the :13: payment made to the complainant.
After perusal of the contents mentioned in the plaint/complaint and after perusal of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission who has taken all care in mentioning the issues in detail and in deciding the same we find no error in the impugned order of the learned District Consumer Commission, therefore, the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is upheld.
ORDER The Appeal No. 384/2019 filed by the Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Limited and another is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commision is upheld. Both the parties shall bear their own costs to this appeal.
The Appeal No. 1036/2019 filed by the complainant Sri Neeraj Jaiswal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commision is upheld. Both the parties shall bear their own costs to this appeal.
This judgment shall be placed on the record of Appeal No.384/2019 with its copy to be laid on the record of Appeal No. 1036/2019.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) PRESIDENT ( SUSHIL KUMAR ) MEMBER pnt [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT