State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager Dhillon Transport Company vs Hans Raj on 26 April, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/312/2017 ( Date of Filing : 13 Dec 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 03/10/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/307/2016 of District DF-I) 1. The Manager Dhillon Transport Company Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Hans Raj Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh PRESIDENT DEV RAJ MEMBER PADMA PANDEY MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 26 Apr 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 312 of 2017 Date of Institution 13.12.2017 Date of Decision 26.04.2018 The Manager Dhillon Transport Company, Dhanas, Chandigarh Manager and Owner of Truck No.PB 12H 3270. ....Appellant Versus 1. Hans Raj son of late Sh. Saran Dass resident of VPO Daraman, Tehsil Shahpur, District Khangra (HP). 2. Nirit Singh Mathauda, Prop M/s Taj Tiles, Marbles and Granites, Mohali Road, Landran, District SAS Nagar (Pb.). 3. Lakhbir Singh Prop. M/s B.S. Tiles House Brothers Associate SCF No.28-29, Maga Market, Entrance of Section 123, Near Water Tank, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Mohali. ......Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 03.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No. 307/2016.. Argued by: Mr.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gurpreet Singh,Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Parminder Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.Sukhwinder Singh,Advocate for respondent No.3 BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Appellant/Opposite party No.1 has filed this appeal against order dated 3.10.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(I), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only), allowing a consumer complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant.
2. Before the Forum, it was grievance of the complainant that on 10.1.2015, he purchased marble and tiles worth more than Rs.one lac. OPs No.2 & 3 engaged OP No.1/appellant to transport the material purchased to the house of the Complainant in District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. It was agreed that on receipt of delivery of goods, transportation charges to the tune of Rs.6000/- shall be paid by the complainant to the driver. The original bills retained by OPs No.2 & 3/respondents No.2 & 3 were to be kept by the driver for showing the same to the concerned authorities. When the material did not reach till 14.1.2015 the complainant tried to contact OPs but to no effect. Legal notice was sent on 15.1.2015, however, he failed to get any response. He then filed a consumer complaint before the Forum.
3. Upon notice, OP No.1 filed its reply stating therein that the material was delivered at the address of the complainant on 11.1.2015. It was denied that transportation charges were to be paid by the complainant. Pleading that there was no deficiency in providing service, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
OP NO.2 failed to put in appearance and was proceeded against ex parte on 12.7.2016.
OP No.3 specifically stated in his reply that the tiles were purchased from him. However, OP No.1/appellant was engaged by the complainant to transport the material to his native place.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The complainant placed on record his affidavit dated 22.12.2016 by way of evidence. The Forum, on appreciation of evidence, perusal of documents on record, and after hearing arguments, allowed the complaint, by observing as under ;
"After going through the evidence on record, it is evident that the material in question was purchased by the complainant from OPs 2 & 3 and it was OP-1 who had to deliver the same at his premises in Himachal Pradesh. Though OP-1 has contended that the material in question was delivered to the complainant at the agreed time, yet, it has failed to produce any evidence in support of the same. OP-1 is a transport company and it is not expected of transporters that they deliver the goods without taking any receipt of the same from the consignee. Even Annexure C-2 merely shows that the truck of OP-1 reached the barrier where the tax was to be paid. There is not even an iota of evidence from the side of OP-1 to prove the delivery of goods to the complainant. Hence, OP-1 is clearly proved to be deficient in rendering proper services which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant."
5. The defence taken by the appellant/OP No.1 was rejected by the Forum, on the ground, that the proof, showing receipt of goods was not placed on record. It was further noticed that the truck in which material was sent for transportation did reach the barrier at the border of Himachal Pradesh but there is no proof that the material was delivered. Accordingly the Forum, vide impugned order, granted following relief against the appellant/OP No.1;
(i) To refund the value of the consignment/goods i.e. Rs.1,04,619/- to the complainant.
(ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
The awarded amount was ordered to be paid within a specified time, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.
6. Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that vide document Annexure C-2 driver of the truck, in which material was loaded for delivery, paid tax at check- post Excise and Taxation Department barrier when entered Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, material was delivered at the native place of respondent No.1/complainant. To strengthen his argument, he said that photocopy of the receipt of payment of tax has been placed on record by the complainant which proves that this photocopy was supplied to the complainant when material was delivered. By making reference to a similar assertion in the written statement, he contended that no rejoinder was filed to controvert the above said averment which went unrebutted.
7. We are not going to accept this argument. It is on record that after filing of reply by OP NO.1/appellant, the complainant/respondent No.1 filed evidence in the shape of affidavit dated 22.12.2016, wherein it is specifically stated that said receipt was obtained from the tax barrier to show that the truck did enter Himachal Pradesh but the material was not delivered at his place. We feel that the plea taken by the complainant is perfectly justified. The Forum has rightly analyzed the evidence on record and formed a correct opinion. Further contention of Counsel for the appellant that the Forum did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint is also liable to be rejected. It is not disputed that the place of business of appellant/OP No.1 is situated at Chandigarh, as such, complaint was rightly entertained. No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld
9. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh] PRESIDENT [ DEV RAJ] MEMBER [ PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER