National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Gati Limited vs R. Ramesh, on 21 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3589 OF 2014 (From order dated 10.06.2014 in First Appeal No. 298 of 2010 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) M/s Gati Limited Having Branch office at 16, Sowripalayam Main Road, Opposite P.S.G. Hospital, Western Gate, Peelamedpudur, Coimbatore 641 004 Head Office at 1-7-293, M.G. Road, Secunderabad Having its North Zonal Office at Plot No. 268, Udyog Vihar Phase IV Gurgaon 122 015 . Petitioner Versus R. Ramesh, S/o R. R. Dhiwari, Proprietor James M R/o 68/2, Pari Nagar, Sungam Byepass Road, 3rd Cross, Coimbatore 641 045 Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. B. Raghunath, Advocate Dated: 21.01.2015 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.
2. Shri R. Ramesh, the complainant is the proprietor of his business. He sent the goods through M/s Gati Ltd., a transporter and its branch, who -2- have been arrayed as opposite parties 1 and 2, respectively in the complaint. It transpired that 2 numbers of Magnets and further High Power Rare Earth Magnet FBO Outlet-Chute-2 numbers in all worth Rs.1,17,000/- were found missing.
3. A complaint was filed before the District Forum wherein it was prayed VII. The complainant therefore most humbly submits that he is entitled to re-imbursement of Rs.1,17,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventeen Thousand Only) with C.S.T. at 3% and also packing and transport charges of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one Thousand Only) and further interest from the date of this complaint at 18% p.a. The complainant must humbly submits that the mental agony caused by loss of goods cannot be estimated in terms of money and the complainant claims a modest sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as compensation for mental agony. The complainant also prays that this Honourable Forum may be pleased to award the above sums to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant along with cost of this complaint.
4. Both the fora below i.e. District Forum and the State Commission, decided the case in favour of the complainant. The District Forum directed the opposite party No. 1 to reimburse a sum of Rs.1,17,000/-with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30.9.2008 till the date of realisation to the complainant and pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-
-3-towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the case. The State Commission dismissed the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties has raised various objections. First of all, it was submitted that the above said transaction is commercial one and the consumer court has no jurisdiction to try this case. He has invited our attention towards Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. However, we are of the view that the case of the complainant is covered with the explanation appended to Clause (d), which clearly shows that the commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of his self employment. There is not an iota of evidence which may go to show that the complainant is doing the business for commercial purpose as such. He is a proprietor of a company. His firm is neither a partnership firm nor a company private or public. Consequently, the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party must be left out of consideration.
7. The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is forgery in the papers produced by the complainant. In this respect, he has invited our attention towards the receipt issued to the complainant. It mentions booked 14 packages weighing 2380 kgs. and -4- under the column of delivery 14 packages weighing 2300 kgs. It also mentions C/B received in damaged condition. The opposite party on the other hand, has filed its carbon copy, which shows 14 packages weighing 2380 received and delivered 14 packages weighing 2300 kgs., which clearly means that the complainant has forged this document. The cutting made thereon established this fact to the hilt.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has tried to explain that there is no such averment in the written statement filed by the opposite parties, it was not their case.
Their case was admitted before the District Forum. The District Forum never mentioned about this fact.
9. All these arguments are misleading. The complainant has tried to pull the wool in the eyes of law as well as the authorities.
He has forged the document and that too, in the consumer Tribunal. However, this is an admitted fact that CB was received in damaged condition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties vehemently argued that no quantum of damaged condition was placed before this Commission. There is no cogent and unflappable evidence adduced by the complainant.
11. As a matter of fact, there is no need to adduce the evidence at all, which clearly means that CB received in damaged condition. It means that the entire CB was received in a damaged condition. The total costs of the -5- consignment is Rs.19,74,510/-.
The complainant could have claimed the entire price of consignment. He fairly restricted his claim to Rs.1,17,000/-. The order passed by the fora below cannot be faulted except on one point. The order passed by the fora below are upheld, except that due to forgery, the complainant is burdened with the costs of Rs.25,000/- out of the amount to be paid by the opposite party. The said amount be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund in the name of Pay and Accounts Officer-Ministry of Consumer Affairs, payable at New Delhi through demand draft within a period of one month with the Registrar of this Commission who will transmit the same to the concerned department. The said amount be paid within one month from today otherwise the complaint shall stand dismissed. If the amount is deposited within one month, the decree will become executable.
In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of.
..
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.
S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Naresh/25