State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amritsar Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Shushil Kumar Gupta on 21 February, 2006
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: 21st February, 2006 Appeal No. A-3429/2000 (Arising from the order dated 15-11-2000 passed by the District Forum-I, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1375/2000) M/s Amritsar Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Appellant. 3981-83, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006. Versus Shri Shushil Kumar Gupta, Respondent. Prop. M/s S.K. Textiles, 180/2/A/A 1st Floor, Katra Nawab, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 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) Respondent booked two consignments with the appellant for transportation from Delhi to Bhiwandi with instructions to deliver the same on presentation of the LRs as these were in the self name. The value of both the consignments was Rs. 2,22,347.70. On having failed to deliver the consignments to the person in whose favour the LRs were issued, the appellant was vide impugned order dated 15th November 2000 directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,22,347.70 being the value of the said consignments along with interest @ 15% and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses.
Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
According to the appellant the original GRs were lost and on the request of the respondent duplicate GR was issued and the goods were delivered to the consignee namely M/s Adhunik Synthetic Ltd., Bhiwandi.
We have perused both the LRs and find that the name of the consignee has been mentioned as self. It is not understandable as to what made the appellant deliver the consignment to M/s Adhunik Synthetic Ltd without any written instructions from the respondent. Merely because bills of the consignments were raised by Adhunik Synthetic Ltd. did not bar appellant to deliver the goods to them directly when the consignee was self. Deficiency in service in such like matters in terms of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
The appellant was thus rightly held guilty for deficiency in service. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so far as refund of the cost of the consignments is concerned, but feel inclined to substitute interest awarded by the District Forum by way of compensation in terms of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Interest is awarded only when there is such a term of contract between the parties or unless there are strong equitable ground.
In the result, we partly allow the appeal by maintaining the direction of refund of Rs. 2,22,347.70 and substitute the interest and cost of litigation by compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. Aforesaid payment shall be made within one month.
5. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
7. Announced on the 21st day of February 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj