AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission itself as we do not find any merits therein.
THE appellants are the original O.Ps. in the aforesaid complaint and they have questioned legality and validity of order dated 8th October, 2001 passed by the District Forum allowing the claim of the complainant-respondent herein and holding the appellant-org. O.P. as deficient in rendering service in the matter of carriage of goods entrusted upon the appellant as carrier. It is noticed that these facts are not much in dispute that the complainant entrusted certain goods for transportation upon the appellants. It is also noticed that there was an agreement with regard to the payment of transportation charges. The complainant also paid the advance amount to the respondent being the consideration for rendering services of transporting the goods. It was agreed as the case of the complainant stands that the balance amount of transportation was to be paid by the consignee and the arrangement was agreed and accepted by the appellants.
The complainant delivered the goods to the appellants in accordance with the arrangement reached but 5-6 days the appellants did not take any steps for transportation of the goods. Hence the complaint.
BEFORE the District Forum as also before us the contention is raised on behalf of the appellants that the complainants have not paid the entire consideration for hiring services of the appellants. In this respect, we may only make reference to Sub-clause (1) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is relevant in the context of contention raised by and on behalf of the appellants. If one reads, the person who hires or avails any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment.
FROM the material on record as mentioned herein above it clearly spells out that the complainants have partly paid the service charges and balance was to be received by the appellants from the consignee of the goods. Therefore, the claim of the complainant squarely falls under Sub-clause (1) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ORDER 1. No merits. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. Office to furnish copies of the judgment to the respondent. Appeal dismissed.