State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Safari Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Surjit Goods Carriers Pvt. Ltd on 29 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1252 of 2003
Date of institution : 22.9.2003
Date of decision : 29.1.2010
Safari Sales Pvt. Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies
Act with its registered office at 107/0, Khotani Textiles Compound, Kurla,
Mumbai-400 070 through its duly authorized officer Mr. Akshit Mahta, Managing
Director.
.......Appellants
Versus
1. M/s Surjit Goods Carriers Pvt. Ltd. through Surjit Singh, Old Kapurthala
Road, Jalandhar City with its Branch Office at Bazar Sakarwani,
Sheranwali Gate, Amritsar.
2. Surjit Singh,
3. Satnam Singh,
4. S. Harminder Singh c/o M/s Surjit Goods Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Old
Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar City.
5. Gurmit Singh c/o M/s Surjit Goods Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Bazar, Sakarwana,
Sheranwala Gate, Amritsar.
6. Dinesh Arora s/o Sewa Ram Arora, Proprietor, Partap Bag Factory, Clock
Tower Market, Ludhiana.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 6.8.2003 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate and Shri Pardeep Pandit, Advocate with him.
For respondents No.1 to 5 : Shri Anil Chawla, Advocate.
For respondent No.6 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The appellants were a company. Sarabjot Arora was duly authorized to
file this complaint. The appellants are manufacturing and selling Safari moulded and soft luggage. They had been sending the goods against payment to various customers.First Appeal No.1252 of 2003. 2
2. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 is a transport company which is owned by respondents No.2 to 5.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellants had got booked the goods for the value of Rs.3,27,946.56P through respondents No.1 to 5 for being delivered to respondent No.6 after receiving the payment. However respondents No.1 to 5 did not make any payment to the appellants nor returned the goods. The appellants had issued notice dated 9.7.2001 notifying the loss as per the invoice value and requested respondent No.1 to re-book the goods to the appellants. Respondent No.1 received the notice on 12.7.2001 but they failed to respond.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellants vide their letter dated 18.2.2002 again requested respondent No.1 to re-book the goods to the appellants but to no effect, although this letter was acknowledged by respondent No.5 on 25.2.2002.
5. It was further pleaded that by making efforts the appellants received some goods from respondent No.6 in the year 2003. However the value of those goods to the tune of Rs.1,18,039.47P was adjusted against the total value of the goods to the tune of Rs.3,27,946.56P. Still the value of the goods for an amount of Rs.2,09,907.09P remains outstanding against respondents No.1 to 5.
6. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed the complaint against them in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum") for recovery of Rs.2,09,907.09P being the outstanding value of the goods booked. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
7. Respondents No.1 to 5 filed the joint written statement. It was denied for want of knowledge if the appellants were a company or if Sarabjot Arora was duly authorized to file the complaint. It was admitted that respondent No.1 was the transport company and it was owned by respondents No.2 to 5. It was admitted that the appellants were dealing with respondents No.1 to 5 for the last 12/13 years and during this long period no dispute had ever arisen between the two parties. It First Appeal No.1252 of 2003. 3 was pleaded that respondents No.1 to 5 are reputed carriers and are doing the transport business to the utmost satisfaction of its customers.
8. It was denied for want of knowledge as to what kind of business was being run by the appellants. It was pleaded that the appellants be asked to prove if they had booked certain goods with respondents No.1 to 5 for the value of Rs.3,27,946.56P for being delivered to respondent No.6. It was, however, pleaded that the contract, if any, had come to an end. Respondents No.1 to 5 had delivered the goods to respondent No.6 as per the directions of the consignors/appellants. So far as the payment was concerned, it was internal arrangement between the appellants and respondent No.6 while the duty of respondents No.1 to 5 was only to deliver the goods to respondent No.6 and they delivered the goods on the directions of the appellants/consignors.
9. It was denied if the appellants were the consumers qua respondents No.1 to 5. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondents No.1 to 5. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
10. Respondent No.6 was proceeded against ex parte.
11. Sarabjot Singh, Senior Sales Executive of the appellants filed his affidavit Ex.C1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C29. Gurpreet Singh, Manager of respondent No.1 filed his affidavit as Ex.R1. They also filed certain documents.
12. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 6.8.2003.
13. Hence the appeal.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 6.8.2003 be set aside and the respondents be directed to pay adequate compensation/interest/costs to the appellants.
First Appeal No.1252 of 2003. 4
15. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
16. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
17. The appellants had filed the affidavit Ex.C1 to prove that the appellants were a company and Sarabjot Arora was duly authorized to file the complaint. A copy of the resolution to that effect has been proved as Ex.C2. The respondents have not led any evidence to the contrary except the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, Manager as Ex.R1.
18. Keeping in view the affidavit/resolution proved by the appellants it is held that the appellants are a company having a legal entity and Sarabjot Arora was competent to file the present complaint against the respondents.
19. Although it was pleaded by the respondents that the appellants be asked to prove if they had got booked certain consignments with respondent No.1 for the value of Rs.3,27,946.56P but then they admitted in subsequent part of the written statement that they had delivered the goods to respondent No.6 on the direction of the consignors/appellants. It amounts to admission on the part of the respondents that certain goods were booked by the appellants through respondents No.1 to 5 for delivery to respondent No.6.
20. Even otherwise the appellants have proved the sale invoices and the GRs as Ex.C3 to Ex.C27 which prove that the appellants had got booked the goods with respondents No.1 to 5 for delivery to respondent No.6. The document dated 18.2.2002 Ex.C27 reveals that the total value of the goods was Rs.3,27,946.56P which were got booked by the appellants through respondent No.1. The GRs have also been proved by the appellants.
21. It is, therefore, clearly proved that the appellants had got booked the goods for the total value of Rs.3,27,946.56P through the appellants for being delivered at Ludhiana and the appellants themselves were the consignee. The goods were to be delivered to the consignee as per the terms and conditions of the GR. First Appeal No.1252 of 2003. 5
22. On the other hand, the respondents have taken the plea that the goods have been delivered to respondent No.6 on the instructions of the appellants. Although invoices were in the name of respondent No.6 but the respondents have failed to prove if the appellants had given any instructions to respondent No.1 for delivering the goods to respondent No.6 without receiving the payment.
23. It is, therefore, clearly proved that the goods were delivered to respondent No.6 by respondents No.1 to 5 without authority.
24. The appellants have also proved that they had received certain goods from respondent No.6. That statement has been proved as Ex.C28. The appellants received the goods from respondent No.6 for the total value of Rs.1,18,039.47P. Very fairly the appellants have reduced the value of these goods from the total value of the goods of Rs.3,27,946.56P.
25. It means, therefore, that the respondents No.1 to 5 had still to account for the value of Rs.2,09,907.09P rounded to Rs.2,09,907/-.
26. Although in the present case the appellants had served a legal notice on the respondents under Section 10 of the Carriers Act but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as ""TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. v. VELJAN HYDRAIR LTD." II(2007)CPJ35(SC) was pleased to hold that the provisions of Section 10 of the Carriers Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Consumer Forums and the complaint cannot be frustrated for want of service of notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act.
27. Keeping in view the discussion held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 6.8.2003 is set aside. Respondents No.1 to 5 are held liable to make the payment of Rs.2,09,907/- to the appellants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 3.10.2002 till the date of payment.
28. The appellants are also held entitled to costs of Rs.20,000/-.
29. The arguments were heard in this case on 28.1.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.1252 of 2003. 6
30. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
January 29, 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER