DENISON HYDRAULICS INDIA LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI V.G SRINIVAS Vs. UNION ROADWAYS LIMITED REP. BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants raised a purchase order dated 12.1.2004 for supplying of two sets of Hydraulic Power Packs and two hydraulic cylinders along with spare seal kits. The complainant raised two different invoices for the products, invoice No.006/2004-5 dated 30.4.2004 for an amount of Rs.1,44,141/- for two sets of Hydraulic Power Packs and another invoice No.023/2004-05 dated 5.6.2004 for an amount of Rs.2,16,211/- towards two hydraulic cylinders. The said products on the directions of M/s Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Limited were booked separately in the opposite party no.1 branch for transportation in the name of M/s Hy-Grade Pellets Limited, Kirundel which is the consignee vide consignment notes No.14384 dated 30.4.2004 and No.14456 dated 5.6.2004 respectively.

(2.) The consignee did not claim the consignment sent through the consignment note no.14384 dated 30.4.2004. Therefore, the complainant asked the opposite parties to rebook the said consignment under the said consignment note No.14384 dated 30.4.2004 to the complainant but the opposite parties failed to rebook the said consignment. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 9.9.2005 asking the opposite party company to rebook the unclaimed consignment dated 30.4.2004. The second opposite party gave reply dated 20.9.2005 stating that the complainant has to submit the original consignee copy of the consignment for rebooking purpose. The complainant approached the opposite parytno.1 along with letter dated 23.9.2005 requesting them to receive the original invoice but they refused to do so. The complainant sent several remainders but in vain. If there is unclaimed material of the complainant the opposite parties are at liberty to dispose of the said consignment after one month from the date of reaching the destination as per the terms noted in the booking receipt after giving a minimum of 15 days notice to the consignor. The opposite parties had not issued any such notice to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to rebook and deliver the consignment to the complainant along with interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) The opposite parties resisted the case contending that the complainant had several times insisted upon rebooking of the consignment; the complainant and M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd., instructed the opposite parties orally to deliver the consignment to the consignee without collecting the consignee copy of the consignment note and that the complainant also received the value of the goods vide cheque No.088658 dated 3.8.2007 for a sum of Rs.2,35,689/- of Bank of India. It is confirmed as per the copy of e-mails dated 3rd and 4th, August 2007. As the opposite parties were under impression that the matter is under compromise informed the same to the District Forum but on 13.9.2007 the counsel for the complainant informed that he has no instructions from his client to withdraw the complaint. The opposite parties contended that the transaction is a commercial transaction and therefore the complainant does not fall under the purview of C.P.Act. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to 21.