JAIN AGENCIES vs GODREJ SOAPS LTD.

THIS appeal is by the complainant challenging order of the District Forum, Faridkot dated August 1, 1996 whereby his complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE complainant, Jain Agencies, Faridkot at the relevant time, a dealer of goods manufactured by opposite party No. 1, Godrej Soaps Ltd. placed an order for getting soap detergent valuing Rs. 27,225/- which were sent through transporter on February 28,1990. Opposite party No. 1 entrusted the goods to CITCO India Pvt. Ltd., opposite party No. 2, who subsequently entrusted the goods to opposite party No. 3, Gaba Transport Company, Faridkot. THE goods were sent from Zirakpur to Faridkot. M/s. Gaba Soaps Ltd. was shown as the consignor as well as the consignee. THE goods receipt, invoice etc. were sent through Bank. THE complainant was to get the papers released on making payment and take delivery of the goods from the transporter. THE complainant got the documents released from the Bank on May 5, 1990 and approached the Gaba Transport Company, Faridkot for taking delivery of the goods which had been observed by him as lying there. Since goods were not delivered, the present complaint was filed, claiming a sum of Rs. 17,228/- plus interest thereon @ 20% per mensum amounting to Rs. 5,504/- and sales tax of Rs. 1,516/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages were also claimed. In a supplementary complaint, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- deposited by the complainant by way of security with Godrej Soaps Ltd. was also sought to be refunded. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before the District Forum. THE complaint was contested by Gaba Transport Company. After getting evidence on affidavits of the parties before the Dist was passed. Although, the appeal was filed through Mr. Raj Kumar Arora, Advocate who had been appearing on the dates fixed did not put in appearance at the time of hearing arguments on January 13, 1997. Counsel for the respondent appeared and argued the case. We have gone through the grounds of appeal and the record of the District Forum and find no cogent ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. One of the grounds of appeal relates to denial of the claim against the Godrej Soaps Ltd. with respect to Rs. 1,000/- security deposited. The District Forum rightly Held that transaction between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 was of a commercial nature. The complainant being a dealer of Godrej Soaps Ltd., got goods for sale. Thus, qua Godrej Soaps Ltd., the complainant could not be treated as a consumer to claim any relief. The complainant is left to seek remedy if any against Godrej Soaps Ltd., with respect to security deposited in a Civil Court. This contention is repelled.

With respect to transporter, Citco India Pvt. Ltd. and Gaba Transport Company, the complainant can be treated as a beneficiary of the transaction of despatch of goods as ultimately the complainant was to present the goods receipt and take delivery of the goods despatched by Godrej Soaps Ltd.

THE question for consideration with respect to transporter of the goods, is as to whether there was any deficiency in rendering service. As far as carrying of goods from Zirakpur to Faridkot is concerned, there was no deficiency in rendering service. THE goods promptly reached Faridkot within few days of the despatch. It is mentioned in the complaint itself that the complainants representative had seen the goods lying in the godown of opposite party No. 3. It is admitted fact that goods receipt was obtained by the complainant from the Bank on May 5,1990, i.e., after about two months of the receipt of the goods at Faridkot. Obviously, he was not in a position to take delivery of the goods prior thereto. THE observations made by the District Forum in this respect were fully justified in the circumstances of the case relying upon the evidence produced by the opposite party that no attempt was made by the complainant to take delivery of the goods for two months. THE ground of appeal in this respect that such observations are uncalled for, cannot be accepted. THE only negligence referred to on the part of the Gaba Transport Company was that initially they demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- only towards demurrage to release the goods, however, the complainant was not agreeable to the same. But that can hardly be treated as negligent act on the part of the Gaba Transport Company who under the terms and conditions of the goods receipt was entitled to claim demurrage if the goods were not taken delivery within three days. To this effect is the Clause 17 of the goods receipt. THE demurrage could be charged @ Re. 1/- per quintal per day. THEre was thus no deficiency in rendering service or negligent act on the part of the Transporter. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs. Order of the District Forum is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.