State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.P. Khurana vs Vishal Goods Carriers on 3 April, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 03-04-2008 Complaint Case No. C-75/1999 P.P. Khurana, Complainant Prop. M/s Parkash Electrical Works, 10/61, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Versus M/s Vishal Goods Carriers,, Opposite Party Through its Partners Through Fleet Owners & Transport Mr. Dilpreet Singh, Contractors, Advocate. 41, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) The complainant sent four consignments of electrical goods/wires and cables from 12-03-1996 to 16-03-1996 worth Rs. 6,67,091/- to Jhalawar through the OP-carrier. The consignee was self. The consignments were to be delivered to M/s J.K. Synthetics at Jhalawar after retirement of documents from the named banker of the complainant. However, M/s J.K. Synthetics failed to retire the documents from the bankers of the complainant who returned the documents to the complainant after two years. Only then the complainant came to know that the OP had released the consignment to M/s J.K. Synthetics without obtaining the bank release order from it. M/s J.K. Synthetics has not paid the price of the goods to the complainant despite demand. Hence the complainant is claiming Rs. 6,67,091/-,a the cost of the consignment from the OP besides Rs. 3.00 lakhs as compensation.
2. The defence taken by the OP is that goods were released to M/s J.K. Synthetics on the oral instructions of the company to release the same without the G.R. Plea of limitation has also been raised. It has been further stated that the complaint is barred under section 41 of the Contract Act as the complain ant has been directly negotiating with the consignee for the recovery of the amount.
3. OP has placed on record copies of the notice dated 07-07-1997 and another subsequent notice issued by the complainants counsel to M/.s J.K. Synthetics and also the letters dated 08-03-1996, 04-09-1996, 08-03-1997 and 28-01-1998 demanding the payment and the reply dated 21-07-1997 sent by it.
4. In reply the complainant has stated that all the correspondence relied upon by it has already been filed.
5. We have perused the documents produced by the OP. It is on the premise of aforesaid notice dated 07-07-1997 sent by the complainant to the buyer M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. that the OP is invoking provisions of Section 41 of the Contract Act. Para 3 of the notice shows that according to the terms and conditions for supply of the goods payment was to be made within stipulated period of 45 days while in case of any delay the buyer was liable to pay interest calculated @ 2% per month for the period of delay. Relevant para is as under:-
3. That according to the terms and conditions for the supply of the goods, the payment was to be made within the stipulated period of 45 days, while in case of any delay, you become liable to pay interest calculated @ 2% for the period of delay.
6. Section 41 of the Contract Act provides as under:-
That in case aggrieved party accepts terms of the contract from another party then the partys claim was absolved from the liability under the Contract Act.
7. In view of the aforesaid fact particularly agreement of the complainant with the buyer as to the supply of goods and payment to be made within stipulated period of 45 days the version of the OP that the goods were released to the buyer on the oral instructions of the company gains credence.
8. In the result we do not find any breach of contract by the OP as practice is that when the goods reach destination city of the consignee, the consignee normally pressurizes the consigner to have goods released without payment promising payment in due course which in this case was 45 days and oral instructions are issued by the consignor to the transporter on the request of the consignee.
9. We do not find any deficiency in service and as such the complaint is dismissed.
10. A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also o the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on 03-04-2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj