Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3193

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member, AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member
The Nagpur Golden Transport Company (Regd.),Golden Building, 1723, Naya Bazar, New Delhi-6 – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Overseas Health Care Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. 75 OF 2008

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Aditi Singh, Mr. Arjit Narula, Mr. Rishabh Shukla
For the Respondents: Mr. Amar Vivek, Mr. Harsh Kadiyan, Mr. Chitwan Godara

Established practices in service contracts may override specific delivery instructions, influencing liability in consumer disputes.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19 - Appeal against the order of State Commission allowing complaint partly - Allegations of deficiency of service by transport company for not delivering goods as per instructions in GDRs - The Commission finds no deficiency in service as established practice of delivery existed between parties (Paras 4, 10, 16, 18).

(B) Deficiency of service - Nature of contractual obligations and instructions in GDRs disregarded; established practice prevails - Relevant facts acknowledged, including ongoing financial disputes and civil litigation against a third party (Paras 15, 16).

(C) Forgery allegations - Claims of misconduct and fraud against transporter substantiated; complexity of transaction dynamics outlined - This led to final dismissal of the claim (Paras 14, 18).

Findings of Court:
The complaint was found untenable considering consistent practices between parties and nature of disputes is deemed to fall outside the purview of consumer protection.

Result: Appeal allowed, complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeal maps out concern over service delivery instructions violation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. allegations of fraud and operational practices raise significant liability issues. (Para 5 , 6 , 12)
3. court upholds validity of established service practices over specific terms. (Para 14 , 16 , 17)
4. final ruling emphasizes jurisdiction and civil recourse. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

Air Vice Marshal, J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM(Retd.)

1. This Appeal is filed under section 19 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”), against the Order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (State Commission”) in CC No. 61 of 1999, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent.

2. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per the Consumer Complaint.

3. When the complaint was filed before the learned State Commission, vide order dated 08.05.2002 the State Commission relegated the matter in dispute to civil court for adjudication. As against the said order, the complainant filed an Appeal before this Commission and this Commission vide order dated 25.11.2003 remanded the complaint to the learned State Commission for being decided on merits. Accordingly, the learned State Commission decided the matter and vide order dated 07.12.2007. As against which this Appeal has been filed by the Opposite Party (OP).

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that M/s Overseas Healthcare Pvt Ltd is a firm dealing with manufacture and supply of medicines. Towards supply and receiving associated consignments it hired the services of the Opposite Party (OP)/Appellant. For transporting a medicine consignment from Phillaur to Bhopal, the complainant hired OP. The consignments in question are medicines and against six invoices and Bills of each consignment were attached with Good Deposit Receipts (G.Rs) It was the complainant themselves who was to get the delivery of the consignment in Bhopal and the too after producing the original G.Rs. It is the contention of the complaint in that these specific delivery instructions were not only incorporated in the G.Rs itself but also given to the respondents orally as well. There were certain financial complications between the complainants and the billed person namely M/s Malhotra Agencies Bhopal. Therefore, the complainant instructed the OP vide letters dated 21.12.1998 to rebook these consignments to the seller in Phillaur. However, OP failed to respond and take necessary action. The complainant forwarded reminders dated 08.02.1998, 12.02.1999 and 03.03.1999 and ultimately by legal notice on 01.04.1999, which was duly served upon OP and they were informed that either goods be rebooked or the value of the same be paid to the complainants. However, the goods in question were not delivered by OP as per the instructions contained in the G.Rs. The complainant neither received the items back form OP nor the value of the goods of the consignment to the tune of Rs.12,50,715. Thus, OP failed to render the services promised to the complainant. Being aggrieved the complainant filed a complaint before the learned State Commission seeking refund of the amount along with compensation and costs of litigation.

5. On issue of notice, OP filed a written version specifically refuting the contentions of the complainant and asserted that the complainant is not a consumer. The OP transporter argued that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of M/s Malhotra Agencies Bhopal as a necessary party. The OP had also contended the issue of territorial jurisdiction and stated that the learned State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter and further contended that the issue in dispute is within the scope of The Carriers Act and OP received no notice in this regard. OP contended that the complainants were dealing in medicines and that they booked these consignmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document