The central legal point established in the judgment is that claims arising from deficiency in services hired for consideration are protected under the Consumer Protection Act, even if they technically amount to a breach of contract.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed against order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 979 of 1995, M/s. Mira Rubber Corporation v. Bombay Delhi Goods Carrier & Ors. The relevant facts which deserve to be noticed, stated briefly, are as under.

2. M/s. Mira Rubber Corporation, 187-A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh booked a consignment of goods worth Rs. 13,722/- with opposite party No. 1, Bombay Delhi Goods Carrier, 14, Transport Area, Chandigarh for delivery to M/s. Khandelwal Sales Corporation, Bandikui (State of Rajasthan) vide Bill No. 0060 dated 17.10.1994. The documents were not discharged from the concerned Bank and as such the bankers returned the original documents/GR to the complainant vide memo dated 15.12.1994. It is alleged that the complainant requested the opposite party to rebook the goods back to Chandigarh or in the alternative to make payment of the value of the consignment. The said request was not attended to by the opposite party. The complainant sent a reminder and also served a legal notice. Consequently, the complaint case was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act) before the District Forum-I.

3. The opposite parties were served with the notice. Opposite party No. 1 put in appearance and filed reply contending that the goods were transported to the destination well within time but nobody took the delivery of goods. It was after a lapse of time that agent of the complainant took delivery of the goods on behalf of complainant after paying the transportation charges and giving a receipt of having received the goods.

4. The complainant filed replication wherein the averments made in the written statement were denied and averments made in the complaint were reiterated.

5. In evidence, the complainant filed affidavit of Sh. Jagmohan Mahajan, Chief Executive of the complainant. The opposite parties, however, did not adduce any evidence. The District Forum-I held deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay value of the consignment i.e. Rs. 13,722/- within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The opposite parties were held liable jointly or severally.

6. The opposite parties filed this appeal and challenged the impugned order passed by the District Forum-I. Notice of the appeal was served on the complainant/respondent, who put in appearance through Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate. Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant. Record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I. We have heard Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate appearing for appellant and Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate appearing for the respondent/complainant. We have also perused the order of the District Forum-I and the record of the complaint case.

7. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the respondent/complainant submitted that it may be got clarified from Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate as to whether he is representing all the appellants or only appellant No. 1. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate drew our attention to the memo of appearance filed in the appeal by Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate which is only on behalf of appellant No. 1, i.e. Bombay Delhi Goods Carrier. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, further referred to the Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate filed in the District Forum-I which shows that he had filed Vakalatnama only on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate, at this stage, conceded that he was representing opposite party No. 1 only and had no authority to appear on behalf of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who were arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint case.

8. The learned Counsel Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate appearing for the ap