Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Col. Rajinder Singh vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure ... on 6 November, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 







 



 

 STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

    UNION  TERRITORY,   CHANDIGARH 

 

  

 

  

 
   
   
   

First Appeal No. 
  
   
   

278 of 2012 
  
 
  
   
   

Date of Institution 
  
   
   

8.8.2012 
  
 
  
   
   

Date of Decision
   
  
   
   

9.10.2012 
  
 


 

  

 

Gagandeep Singh s/o Beghel Singh, R/o
H.No.B-747, Ward No.6, Street No.5, Mansa.  

 

  

 

 .Appellant
 

 

 Vs. 

 

1. Green Time   Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. through
Proprietor Mr.Vijay Sethi, Level-1, SCO 485-86, Sector 35-C,   Chandigarh.  

 

2] Guru Nanak L.C.V. Operators Society
Mohali (Regd.), Opposite Indl. Area Market, Phase-9, Mohali ( Punjab.). 

 

 .
Respondents 

 

 

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE
SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT  

 

 MRS.
NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 

Present: Sh. Mukund Gupta, Adv. for the appellant.

Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv. for respondent No.1 The appeal against respondent No.2 has already been dismissed vide order dated 22.8.2012.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER   This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 4.7.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2                   

Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the Complainant, a student of Chitkara Institute of Engineering, Rajpura ( Punjab), was one of the Members of RXG Team, formed by the College to participate in Shell Eco-Marathon Competition Asia-2011 to be held at Sepang International Circuit in Kuala Lumpur, where he was to demonstrate a Model of Fuel Efficient Car. It was stated that that the RXG Team hired the service of Green Time Travel/Opposite Party

-1, which planned their lodging and air flights to Kuala Lumpur as also cargo transfer to Sepang International Circuit. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 had association with Guru Nanak LCV Operators Society Mohali/Opposite Party -2, for sending cargo to the desired destinations.

It was further stated that the complainant was assured by the Opposite Parties, that his cargo would reach in time before the competition to be held from 6.7.2011 to 9.7.2011. It was further stated that as per advice of the Opposite Parties the complainant also got a certificate issued from FICCI by depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Non-refundable) as Carnet issuing Fee; Rs.40,320/- as Refundable Security (Ann.C-1) and Rs.2500/- for Fumigation Certificate. The complainant deposited the certificate with the Opposite Parties in time so that they could send the cargo to Kuala Lumpur. It was further stated that on completion of the requisite formalities of getting the Carnet Certificate issued from FICCI, the Opposite Parties were supposed to send the cargo to IGI Airport, New Delhi and then to the destination. For all this, the complainant had to incur transportation expenses of Rs.8000/-. It was further stated that on 4.7.2011 Mr.Vijay Sethi gave the complainant and his team the address of Jayaxpress Mahipalpur and on arriving there, they were shocked to know that the cargo could not leave due to closing of Custom Office and it was to leave the airport the next day i.e. 5.7.2011. They also took the signatures of the team members on photocopies of their passports and on some blank sheets. It was further stated that the amounts of Rs.37,500/- and 18,000/- were deposited in the account of Mr.Vijay Sethi, Director of OP-1 Company, for the said trip (Ann.C-2 & C-3).

However, the cargo did not reach Malaysia even on 6.7.2011 inspite of the assurances given through e-mails (Ann.C-4 colly) to one of the team members Mr.Jaideep Girdhar. It was further stated that, thus, due to the delay in cargo, the complainant and his team could not take part in the said Competition, which shattered the future prospects of the complainant of being selected by the Top Multinationals Companies in case he could demonstrate his model. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties further showed their negligence and returned the cargo only after a lot of harassment , at the expense of the complainant and the amount of Rs.55,500/- which was charged for transporting the cargo from New Delhi to Malaysia was not returned by the Opposite Parties, on the ground, that the charges were consumed in the process. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties did not even return the carnet certificate issued by FICCI due to which the complainant was unable to get refundable security of Rs.40,320/-. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were also liable to pay the expenses borne by the Team Members of the complainant to travel to Malaysia and also for transfer of cargo to New Delhi. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint was filed.

3                   

In its reply Opposite Party-1 stated that the complainant neither availed of its services nor it ever charged any money as consideration for such alleged hiring of services by the complainant. It was stated that only two members namely Gagandeep Singh and Jaideep Girdher were to go to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to show case the project model car in the competition, as such two return Air Tickets from New Delhi to Kuala Lumpur and back for the said two members were booked Online on 13th June, 2011. It was further stated that the Malaysia Visa & Hotel Booking at Kuala Lumpur of two team members, who personally went to showcase the model car, were arranged by Gangadeep Singh through Venus Holiday Mart, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

It was further stated that the contention of the complainant that OP-1 had sent the model car to New Delhi in Truck on 3.7.2011, through OP-2, was false and the said bill of OP-2 was a procured document. It was further stated that the members of RXG Team had themselves taken the model car by truck to New Delhi on 2.7.2011 itself where the same was fumigated while loaded in the truck itself on 2.7.2011. It was further stated that OP-1 had no association with OP-2, as is clear from the Certificate of Incorporation and Extract of Memorandum of Association of Greentime Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated that OP-1 only guided the members of Team RXG to get in touch with Mr. H.S. Kohli of Carex Cargo, New Delhi, who was dealing in the cargo of airlines. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.37,500/- and Rs.18,000/- deposited by the complainant in the account of Sh.Vijay Sethi, Director of Opposite Party No.1, was further transmitted to the account of Sh.H.S.Kohli as was clear from the account statement Ann.R-6 for further transmission to Jaya Express Cargo for spending on other formalities requisite for loading the model car in the cargo of Air Asia Airline. It was further stated that that the father of the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs.55,500/- in the bank account of Opposite Party No-1 on 5.7.2011. As was apparent from the perusal of Ann.R-6, an amount of Rs.46,000/- was transmitted by OP-1 to the account of Sh.H.S.Kohli on 5.7.2011 and Rs.4700/- on 7.7.2011, which comes to Rs.50,700/-. The amount of Rs.4800/- was being with OP-1 qua which a demand draft (Ann.R-7), in favour of Gangandeep Singh Mahal, was prepared for delivery to him. It was further stated that the model car was handed over to the cargo representatives of the Airlines for loading on 5.7.2011, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, such as custom clearance at the 2nd level, permission of Carnet from Inspector, Superintendent, Assistant Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Inspection at Old Custom House and New Custom House in cases of Carnet Certificate wherein goods are sent abroad, which also have to come back to the Country unlike usual export goods, delay was caused, subsequently on account of the advice of the agents of Team RXG due to heavy rush, who were to receive the cargo from the Airline in Kuala Lumpur and to get the same released from the Custom Authorities in Malaysia, as informed by Jaideep Girdher from Malaysia, the said model car was withdrawn at the last movement from the Cargo Section of the Airlines. Thus the airways bill was cancelled. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

4                   

Despite service, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, hence it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 16.3.2012.

5                   

The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6                   

After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated, in the opening para of this order 7                    Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal.

8                   

On 22.8.2012, the Counsel for the appellant made a statement at the bar that he did not claim any relief against respondent No.2, and gave him up., As such, appeal against respondent No.2 was dismissed.

9                   

We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.

10              

The main submission of the Counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant availed of the services of respondent No.1 for sending the car, in question, through cargo from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur for which respondent No.1 charged Rs.55,500/- . It was further submitted that despite completing all the formalities as advised by respondent No.1 the said car was not sent by it from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur at the relevant time, as a result whereof the complainant could not display the vehicle in the exhibition held at international level. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 vide its various communications had shown its inability to send the vehicle through cargo from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur. It was further submitted that when the complainant returned to India neither the amount of Rs.55,500/- was refunded to him, nor the original documents such as carnet certificates and refundable security receipt issued by FICCI were retuned to him, owing to which the complainant was unable to get refund of the refundable security. It was further submitted that the District Forum wrongly held that no consideration was ever paid to respondent No.1, whereas respondent No.1 in its reply admitted receipt of Rs.55,500/- towards charges of sending, the car in question, to Kuala Lumpur through cargo, which is evident from Annexure R-6. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 adopted unfair trade practice by doing the business which it was not authorized to do.. It was further submitted that the District Forum did not appreciate the fact properly and wrongly dismissed the complaint.

11              

On the other hand the counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 never provided any services to the complainant as it did not deal with the CARGO of Airlines. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 was only carrying on the business as agent and organizer of travel by air, land, water rail-road system and not as cargo agent. Thus there was no question of offering cargo services, to the complainant. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 only helped the complainant in good faith because Sh. Moninder Singh Goraya father of Roohpuneet Singh Goraya one of the members of Team RXG is a good friend of Vijay Sethi and respondent No.1 only guided them to Mr. H.S. Kohli of Carex Cargo. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 had no role to play for not sending the model car to Kuala Lumpur as it was not its business and the matter was actually between the complainant , Mr. H.S. Kohli and Jaya Express Cargo Private Ltd.

12              

The moot question, to be determined, in the present case, is as to whether, respondent No.1 only gave friendly assistance to the complainant and guided team RXG to H.S. Kohli for availing of cargo services without receiving any consideration. Our answer to the question is in the negative. If for the sake of arguments, we believe that respondent No.1 gave a friendly assistance to team RXG to contact H.S. Kohli or Jaya Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd., for sending the car, in question, through cargo from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur, then why did it got deposited money, in its own account, and then transferred the same to the account of H.S. Kohli and further to Jaya Express Cargo Private Ltd. after retaining Rs.4800/- with it for the services, which were to be rendered either by Mr. H.S. Kohli or Jaya Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. This act of respondent No.1 clearly proved that it was not giving friendly assistance to team RXG and was actually working as an agent of H.S. Kohli or Jaya Express Cargo and that was why he retained Rs.4800/- with it as commission which, it subsequently, after the decision of complaint offered to return to the complainant. Furthermore, all the communications regarding transporting of the car in question, to Kuala Lumpur, with team RXG through emails were made by none other than respondent No.1. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case it has been proved that respondent No.1 was acting as an agent for H.S. Kohli or Jaya Express Cargo and was handling all the procedure at its own level i.e. receiving of the consideration money from RXG team for cargo service and thereafter communicated with them through emails, regarding sending of the car. Therefore, respondent No.1 was deficient in rendering service, to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get back the amount which he deposited with respondent No.1 alongwith interest.

13              

Since due to the fault of respondent No.1 the complainant could not display his car in the exhibition, it caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to him. Thus the complainant/appellant is entitled to get compensation on this account also.

14              

Admittedly the complainant paid consideration to respondent No.1 for sending the vehicle from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur, which it did not send. Therefore, the affidavits, filed by Moninder Singh Goraya and Rooh Puneet Singh Goraya in support of respondent No.1, had no effect on the merits of the case. Even otherwise, Maninder Singh Goraya is a close friend of respondent No.1, which fact has been fairly admitted by him in his affidavit. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on these affidavits.

15              

Thus the order passed by the District Forum being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity and is liable to be set aside.

16              

However, the contention of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant that respondent No.1 did not return the Carnet Certificate issued by FICCI, which was deposited by him with it, does not carry any merit. As is evident from Annexure C-4 (colly) at page 39 of the District Forum record attached by the complainant, respondent No.1 requested team RXG through Jaideep Girdher one of the members of team RXG to bring back the truck for inspection and clearance of customs so that the carnet certificate could be released. But the complainant neither produced the documents which could prove that it got custom clearance done to get released the carnet certificate nor produced on record any document vide which it could be proved that it had actually deposited the certificate with respondent No.1. Hence in the absence of any cogent evidence respondent No.1 cannot be directed to return carnet certificate to the complainant. Hence this contention of the appellant/complainant is not sustainable and same is rejected.

17              

In view of the above, the appeal is partly accepted with costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under;

1.                  to refund Rs.55,500/-

to the complainant, which were deposited by him with it, with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its deposit.

2.                  to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment.

3.                  to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of litigation.

  18              

The aforesaid order shall be complied with, by respondent No.1, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, it shall pay interest @ 12% P.A., on the amount awarded above, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides costs.

19               

However keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from H.S. Kohli or Jaya Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd, by resorting to the remedy available to him under the relevant provisions of law.

20              

Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

October 9, 2012. [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER       mp