HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD. Vs. SURI FASHIONS PVT.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the Managing Director of the Appellant Company who appeared in person and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, we have come to the conclusion that the State Commission was not right in declining to go into the merits of the complaint on the ground that the matter pertains to the realms of breach of contract.

(2.) THE Complainant had engaged the services of the first Respondent -Messrs. Economic Transport Organisation - a firm which is engaged in the business of transportation of goods - for transport of certain goods from Shivganj in Rajasthan to Cuttack in Orissa and paid the necessary transportation charges. He had thus hired for consideration the services of the Economic Transport Organisation, represented by Respondents 1 to 4 and his grievance is that there was a deficiency in the service rendered to him by the said transport organisation as a result of which the complainant is said to have suffered loss. The case of the complainant is that the goods were to be delivered only against documents which the complainant had discounted with a bank. The invoice who was to take the delivery of the goods at Cuttack after making payment to the bank and obtaining the documents failed to honour the bill and the bank thereupon intimated the said fact to the complainant and handed back to him the original goods receipt after collecting from the complainant the amount due to the bank. It is alleged that subsequent thereto the Complainant requested the carrier to redeliver the goods to him at Shivganj after transporting them back from Cuttack and he paid the charges for such transportation and surrendered the original documents to the carrier. But the opposite party numbers 1 to 4 did not redeliver the goods to him in spite of repeated demands and the Complainant thereby sustained heavy loss. If these allegations are true they would undoubtedly constitute a clear case of deficiency in service the mere fact that the default or deficiency on the part of the carrier may also amount to a breach of contract under the general law will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Forums set up under the special law namely, the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). Once it is found that there is a hiring of service for consideration and that loss has been caused to the Complainant on account of neglect and deficiency in rendering the service, the aggrieved consumer is entitled to seek his remedy under the Consumer Protection Act by approaching the appropriate redressal forum. Every transaction of hiring of service may amount to a contract in the eye of law and any deficiency in rendering the service may be technically a breach of contract but merely for that reason the consumer cannot be denied the benefit of the protection conferred by the Act. While, ordinarily, claims arising out of breach of contract will have to be agitated before the regular Civil Courts, grievances relating to loss or injury caused on account of negligence and deficiency in the performance of services which are hired for consideration have been classified for special protection under the Act and in such cases the aggrieved consumer is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Redressal Forums constituted under the Act, seeking relief as specified in the Act. Hence the ground on which the State Commission declined to investigate into the complaint does not appeal to us as correct or sound.

(3.) WE , accordingly, set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission, Rajasthan for fresh disposal on the merits after investigating into the pleas put forward by both sides in the light of the evidence that may be adduced before it by both the parties. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case. Mr. Das Behl, learned Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 submitted that respondents 1 to 4 have a case that the goods were delivered by the transporter to the invoice under specific instructions given to the carrier by the complainant. This is, however, strongly denied by the Managing Director of the Complainant company who appeared before us. These are matters for investigation and determination by the State Commission.