State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Rameshwar Lal Sarup Chand vs Amritsar Commercial Carriers (Regd.) on 28 February, 2014
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.2044 of 2010
Date of institution:29.11.2010
Date of Decision : 28.02.2014
M/s Rameshwar Lal Sarup Chand carrying on business at Kt.
Ahluwalia, Amritsar through its Partner Raj Kumar.
........Appellant.
Versus
Amritsar Commercial Carriers (Regd.) having its office I/s Ghee Mandi,
Amritsar through its Partner/Prop/Director/Principal Officer.
.....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
06.10.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Anil Chawla, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte JASBIR SINGH GILL, MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter called 'the appellant') under Section 15 of the consumer protection act against the order dated 06.10.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant/complainant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complaint has been filed by M/s Rameshwar Lal Sarup through its partner, Raj Kumar now First Appeal No.2044 of 2010 2 appellant, which is the partnership firm carrying on business at Kt. Ahluwalia Amritsar. Appellant booked four bales of shawls with the respondent vide GR No. 53154 dated 20.9.2009 of the total value of Rs. 60750/- Ex.Amritsar to Jhansi against bill No. 274, 275, 276 and 277. Respondent received Rs. 1730/- from the appellant for delivering the aforesaid consignments to the consignee and the respondent agreed that the consignments would be delivered at the destination in perfectly sound condition and that there will be no loss of any sort. Appellant pleaded that out of four bales of shawls, respondent delivered only three bales and the fourth bale of shawls of the value of Rs. 25000/- against bill No. 277 was not delivered to the consignee. The appellant contacted the respondent and requested it to apprise him about the fate of the fourth bale/consignment but the respondent did not give any satisfactory reply to the appellant. He has also written a letter dated 08.12.2009 requesting it to settle the same. The respondent assured the appellant that the claim of the appellant being genuine one would be settled very soon but despite lapse of considerable time, respondent has failed to settle the claim. Hence, the appellant filed the complaint with the prayer that the respondent be directed to pay the price of the goods contained in the consignment i.e. Rs.25,000/- along with interest of 18% from the date of booking of the consignment, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses and counsel fees to the tune of Rs.10,000/- be awarded.
3. Upon notice the respondent did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Appellant led evidence in support of its claim by way of affidavits and documents.
First Appeal No.2044 of 2010 3
5. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant is not a consumer and the complaint in such a case will not be maintainable under the Act.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.10.2010, the appellant has come up in appeal.
7. The appeal was filed by the appellant on the ground that the learned district Forum while dismissing the complaint failed to take into consideration the fact that it has been repeatedly held that the transactions/acts done for earning livelihood by self employment are covered under the deficiency of service. Moreover, the booking of the bales is not covered under the commercial purpose as the appellant is nothing to gain. It was further stated that it is a deficiency in service on the part of the transporter who has not sent the consignment to the consignee, and prayed for the acceptance of the appeal.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the written arguments.
9. Neither the respondent nor any person on behalf of the respondent appeared in this Commission and respondent was proceeded against ex-parte.
10. The appellant booked four bales of shawls vide G.R.Ex.C-2 through respondent and it was to reach consignee Shree Balaji Textiles. Ex.C-3 is the bill of the bales. As per Ex.C-4 only three bales were delivered to the Balaji Textiles. As per this the fourth bale was not delivered which was of the value of Rs.25,000/-. Vide letter Ex.C-5, the First Appeal No.2044 of 2010 4 appellant wrote to the respondent that out of four bales, bale No.277 valuing Rs.25,000/- was not delivered. The respondent was asked to settle the claim as early as possible. The respondent has not contested the complaint before the District Forum and has also not come present to contest the appeal inspite of due service and was proceeded against ex-party.
11. The order of the District Forum that the dispute is not a consumer dispute and it falls under the commercial purpose is not enable. The consignor-appellant has entrusted four bales to the respondent who is a carrier to deliver it to Balaji Textile but as discussed above, one bale of value of Rs.25,000/- was not delivered. Hon'ble National Commission in case "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nanaksar Road Carriers", II (2013) CPJ 422 (NC) has held that the non-delivery of consignment of Carrier amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint is maintainable.
12. As stated above, the evidence produced by the appellant has remained unrebutted and respondent has not bothered to contest the same. The presumption goes against the respondent that respondent has no defense.
13. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the District Forum is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be ser aside. Complaint is maintainable and rightly the compensation is being claimed by the consignor from consignee who has not delivered the goods at the destination.
14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 passed by District Forum is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant is allowed and respondent is directed to pay the First Appeal No.2044 of 2010 5 price of the consignment/bale in question which comes to Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% from the date of booking of the consignment i.e.20.09.2009 till realization. Respondent is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses. Respondent is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.02.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Judicial Member
February 28, 2014. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
Lb/- Member