State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaipur Golden Transport Organization vs Kalsi Polymer Pvt. Ltd. on 20 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.605 of 2011
Date of institution : 7.4.2011
Date of decision : 20.7.2012
1. Jaipur Golden Transport Organization, 4738, Roshanara Road, Delhi-
110 007 through its Manager, Partner/Proprietor.
2. The Manager (Admn. Officer), Jaipur Golden Transport
Organization, A-2, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110 052.
3. The Manager, Jaipur Golden Transport Organization, 5-Patel Chowk,
Jalandhar.
.......Appellants
Versus
Kalsi Polymer Pvt. Ltd., Waryana Industrial Complex, Near Leather
Complex, Jalandhar 21 through its duly authorized representative Mr.
Gagandeep Singh Kalsi, Director.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
16.2.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Sunil Dixit, Advocate.
For the respondent : Shri G.S. Gujral , Advocate for Shri Ashok Giri, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent is a private limited Company having its office in Jalandhar and is running the business of manufacturing and sale of PVC insulated wires and cables etc. Gagandeep Singh Kalsi was the Director of First Appeal No.605 of 2011. 2 the respondent who is duly authorized to file the complaint. The appellants are running the business of transportation of goods.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent had booked a consignment of goods with the appellants at Jalandhar for transportation of the consignment to Rajkot (Gujarat). The consignee were M/s Parmeshwar Enterprises, Aradhana Complex, Kanta Vikas, Gruh Road, Rajkot (Gujarat). The consignment was booked by the appellants at GR No.570-157428 dated 3.7.2009 pertaining to invoice No.R-4093 for Rs.27,600/- and invoice No.R- 4094 dated 3.7.2009 for Rs.89,366/-. The goods were to be delivered to the consignee on acceptance of the consignee copy as the payment of the said consignment was yet to be received by the respondent from the consignee. The consignee copy was accordingly retained by the respondent. The freight charges were Rs.1430/- as were mentioned in the GR.
3. It was further pleaded that the payment of the goods sent by the respondent through GR No.570-157428 dated 3.7.2009 through the appellants was not received. Accordingly the respondent had written letter dated 16.8.2009 to the appellants for re-booking the consignment to the respondent. This letter was replied by the appellants vide letter dated 22.8.2009 by which the consignee copy was demanded for re-booking the consignment. Accordingly the respondent had written letter dated 5.9.2009 to the appellants enclosing therewith original GR and copy of the invoices. Appellant No.1 had written letter to appellant No.3 for re-booking the consignment.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondent received the letter dated 12.9.2009 informing him that Rajkot Office of the appellants had already delivered the goods to the consignee on the letter pad. It was specifically mentioned in the GR that the goods were to be delivered on the surrender of the consignee copy but by delivering the goods to the consignee without the First Appeal No.605 of 2011. 3 consignee copy, the appellants had committed deficiency in service. Hence the respondent had filed the present complaint for recovery of Rs.1,16,966/- which was the value of the consignment. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS:
5. The appellants had filed the written reply. Legal objections were pleaded. On merits, it was denied if Gagandeep Singh Kalsi was duly authorized to file the complaint. It was, however, admitted that the appellants were running the business of transportation of goods. It was also admitted that the respondent had booked the consignment on 3.7.2009 for invoice No.R-4093 for Rs.27,600/-. The goods were delivered to the consignee M/s Parmeshwar Enterprises, Rajkot.
6. It was denied if invoice No.R-4094 dated 3.7.2009 for Rs.89,366/-
was also sent by the respondent through the appellants through this GR dated 3.7.2009. It was denied if the goods were to be delivered on submission of the consignee copy. Rather the name of the consignee was not mentioned. Rather it was mentioned as "self". The appellants were not concerned with the payment of goods as it was transaction between the respondent and the purchaser M/s Parmeshwar Enterprises. It was admitted that the respondent had written for re-booking the consignment but the consignment was already delivered. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
7. Parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
8. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1000/- vide impugned judgment dated 16.2.2011 and compensation First Appeal No.605 of 2011. 4 amount of Rs.10,000/-. The appellants were directed to make the payment of Rs.1,16,966/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
9. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that only invoice No.4093 dated 3.7.2009 was booked by the respondent with the appellants and not invoice bearing no.R-4094 dated 3.7.2009. The said consignment was delivered to the consignee in accordance with law. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2011 be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. The admitted facts are that the respondents are running the business of manufacturing and sale of PVC insulated wires and cables etc. in the name and style of M/s Kalsi Polymer Pvt. Ltd. and the appellants are running the business of transportation of goods. It is also admitted between the parties that the goods were booked by the respondents with the appellants on 3.7.2009 for which GR dated 3.7.2009 Ex.C-4 was issued by the appellants. The goods were to be delivered at Rajkot. Consignee copy was kept by the respondent himself and in the GR consignee's name was given as Parmeshwar Singh.
14. The respondents had pleaded that the goods of two invoices, namely, invoice no.R-4093 dated 3.7.2009 for Rs.27,600/- and of invoice No.K-4094 dated 3.7.2007 for Rs.89,366/- were booked. The copies of these invoices were proved as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3.First Appeal No.605 of 2011. 5
15. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that only one invoice was booked in GR dated 3.7.2009 and that was invoice bearing No.R-4093. It was denied if the goods of invoice No.R-4094 were also booked in this GR.
16. The GR dated 3.7.2009 Ex.C-4 has been examined. Invoice No.4093 was specifically mentioned as having been booked through this GR. There is no reference of invoice no.4094. If invoice No.R-4094 had also been booked through this GR, then the reference of invoice No.R-4094 would also have been made in the GR. Since that reference is not there, therefore, the version of the respondent is totally false that the goods of invoice No.R-4094 were also booked through this GR dated 3.7.2009 (Ex.C4).
17. If in fact the goods of invoice No.R-4094 dated 3.7.2009 for Rs.89,366/- were also booked through GR dated 3.7.2009 (Ex.C-4) and its reference could not be made due to a clerical error, then the respondent should have immediately issued the notice to the appellants that the reference of invoice No.R-4094 had not been made either intentionally or unintentionally but no such notice was ever issued by the respondent to the appellants. Mere filing of the affidavits that the goods of invoice No.4094 dated 3.7.2009 for Rs.89,366/- were also booked cannot be believed when GR dated 3.7.1999 Ex.C-4 does not have any reference to this invoice number. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants has merit that only the goods of invoice no.R-4093 for Rs.27,600/- were booked and not of invoice No.R-4094.
18. Although the consignee was mentioned to be Parmeshwar Singh but a note is printed on the top of the GR dated 3.7.2009 Ex.C-4 that goods will be delivered against surrender of consignee copy of this Goods Receipt payment of freight, Terminal Tax and other charges and if delivery is not First Appeal No.605 of 2011. 6 taken within a reasonable time the company shall not be liable for any damage to the goods. Admittedly the goods were delivered by the appellants to the consignee without taking the consignee copy from the consignee. Rather the appellants had demanded the consignee copy from the respondents vide letter dated 22.8.2009.
19. It clearly means, therefore, that the appellants had delivered the goods to the addressee without taking the consignee copy from the addressee. Therefore there was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellants by which the respondent has suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.27,600/-.
20. Keeping in view the discussion held above, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2011 is modified. The respondent is held entitled to the recovery of Rs.27,600/- from the appellants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint in the learned District Forum on 24.2.2010 till the date of payment.
21. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 7.4.2011.
22. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
23. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.First Appeal No.605 of 2011. 7
24. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
25. The arguments in this case were heard on 16.7.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
26. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT July 20 , 2012 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) Bansal MEMBER