NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member and Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Member
Babu Lal Sharma and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Subhash Kumar – Respondent
Revision Petition No.189 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 22/09/2010 in Appeal No.612/2007 of the State Commission Bihar)
Decided on 20.4.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Agreement - ‘Subject To Secunderabad Jurisdiction Only’ -- Mere printing of ‘Subject To Secunderabad Jurisdiction Only’ by the transport co. on its challan, even when the self-evident principal objective of the challan was actually to record just the details (description, weight, amount, etc.) of the goods handed over / taken over for transportation and their charges, does not convert it into the nature of an ‘agreement’ as is normally understood but as has been vainly argued by the learned counsel.
2. Retaining the goods - Retaining the goods for about a decade and a half despite having received complete and total payment for transportation and delivery, in addition to being deficient per se, is also an unfair & deceptive act.
3. Scope of Act – Unequal’s - The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals.
4. Unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice - An unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as may be judiciously determined on facts and reason after fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as ‘unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(r).

Headnote:

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] – Services – Logistics / Transporting Services – Territorial Jurisdiction - Whether with the District Commission at Patna, erred by entertaining and deciding the complaint, when challan contained ‘Subject To Secunderabad Jurisdiction Only’ - Mere printing of ‘Subject To Secunderabad Jurisdiction Only’ by the transport co. on its challan, even when the self-evident principal objective of the challan was actually to record just the details (description, weight, amount, etc.) of the goods handed over / taken over for transportation and their charges, does not convert it into the nature of an ‘agreement’ as is normally understood but as has been vainly argued by the learned counsel. In fact by innocuously, rather insidiously, interposing a line ‘Subject To Secunderabad Jurisdiction Only’ on its challan and then getting the consumer to sign it in respect of the details of the goods and the charges for their transportation (which was the principal objective of preparing the paper) and then to subsequently contend when the contingency so arose that the territorial jurisdiction laid down under the statute itself stood ousted, is an unsavoury overreach which is unethical, and totally untenable in law, and in addition nothing but a patent unfair & deceptive act on the part of the transport co. [Para 6]

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] – Services – Logistics / Transporting Services – Non delivery of goods – Entire amount paid – No Addational charges due – Retention of goods amounts to deficiency of Service - Whether deficiency in service can be fastened on the Transporting Company - The proved facts of the case as determined by the two fora below are that the total charges of Rs. 64,450/- had been duly paid by the complainant to the transport co. by bank demand draft in 2007 itself. At the relevant time no additional charges whatsoever were due. Despite having received the total charges, the transport co. failed to transport and deliver the complainant’s goods from Pune to Patna - The transport co. failed and omitted to discharge its duty of transporting and delivering the complainant’s goods even after receiving the total charges therefor - Retaining the goods for about a decade and a half despite having received complete and total payment for transportation and delivery, in addition to being deficient per se, is also an unfair & deceptive act. The highhandedness displayed by the transport co. is preposterous, even despotic and leaves much to be desired- The deficient and unfair & deceptive acts of the transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. contain ingredients of both ‘deficiency’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ under the Act 1986. Both terms (‘deficiency’ and ‘unfair trade practice’) are plainly defined in the Act itself (section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(r)). In respect of ‘unfair trade practice’ – Thus, the list provided under section 2(1)(r) of the Act 1986 is illustrative and not comprehensive or exhaustive. As such, an unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as may be judiciously determined on facts and reason after fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as ‘unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(r) -Revision dismissed with directions. [Paras 7 to 8]

Result: Revision dismissed.