State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Joginder Singh & Ors. vs Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors. on 31 October, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.208/2014
Date of Presentation: 17.06.2014
Date of Decision: 31.10.2014
..................................................................................
(1) Joginder Singh;
(2) Pratap Singh;
(3) Rohit Machhan; &
(4) Liaq Ram Machhan;
All Residents of Village & Post Office Kutara,
Tehsil Rohroo, District Shimla, H.P.
......... Appellants.
Versus
(1) Rohroo Truck Operator Union,
Village, Post Office & Tehsil Rohroo,
District Shimla, H.P.
(2) United Growers Forwarding Agency,
Kutara, Village & Post Office Kutara,
Tehsil Rohroo, District Shimla, H.P.
(3) Anil Shyam, son of Shri Bir Chand Shyam,
Resident of Village, Post Office & Tehsil Rohroo,
District Shimla, H.P.
......... Respondents.
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellants: Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 3: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Ex-parte.
..........................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014)
________________________________________________________
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants have preferred the present appeal against order dated 19.04.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby their complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which they filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the finding that appellants did not produce a copy of First Information Report, which was lodged with regard to the accident of truck, in which their consignment of apples was being carried, nor did they produce any record showing as to in whose favour, the apple boxes were released, on spurdari, by the police, after occurrence of the accident.
2. Appellants filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that through respondent No.2, who is a Forwarding Agency, they sent a consignment of 609 boxes of apples, by truck No.HP-63-2457, owned by respondent No.3, Anil Shyam, and that the said truck of respondent No.3, Anil Shyam, was engaged, through respondent No.1, i.e. Rohroo Truck Operator Union. It was stated that GRs, Annexures C-1 to C-5 were Page 2 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ issued by respondent No.2 and another document, Annexure C-6, was issued by respondent No.1, Rohroo Truck Operator Union, in respect of 609 apple boxes. It was stated that consignment was loaded in the truck on 16.09.2009 and when the consignment was being carried to Delhi, truck met with an accident, on 17.09.2009, at a place falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jubbal.
3. Appellants alleged that apples were of very high quality and would have fetched a price of not less than `2,000/- per box in the market at Delhi. It was alleged that after occurrence of accident, respondents No.1 & 3 carried the apple boxes from the spot to a market, but did not account for the same, meaning thereby that they did not pay the price fetched by those apple boxes in Delhi market. On the aforesaid allegations, appellants prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of `9.00 lacs, on account of value of the consignment and `75,000/-, as compensation for harassment, besides litigation expenses.
4. Respondents No.1 & 3, i.e. Truck Operator Union and owner of the truck, filed a common reply, in which it was stated that only 451 apple boxes were Page 3 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ being carried in the truck and that the GRs, Annexures C-1 to C-5 and receipt, Annexure C-6, had been procured by the appellants, with the intention to damage their reputation. It was also pleaded that after occurrence of the accident, appellants themselves had lifted the apple boxes from the spot and sold the same in the market.
5. Respondent No.2, Forwarding Agent, did not file any reply, but had responded to the legal notice, which the appellants served before filing of complaint, in which it was admitted that 609 apple boxes were dispatched to Delhi in the truck of respondents No.1 & 3.
6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellants have not placed on record the First Information Report, or any other record showing as to in whose favour, the apple boxes were released, on spurdari, by the police, after occurrence of the accident, despite the fact that respondents No.1 & 3 specifically pleaded that apple boxes had been carried from the spot by the appellants.
7. Appellants have moved an application for placing on record a copy of First Information Report. Page 4 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ The same is registered as M.A. No.794 of 2014. Though the First Information Report does not prove as to in whose favour, the apple boxes were released by the police, yet we allow this application and permit the appellants to place on record the copy of First Information Report, because this would prove the date of accident and may also be relevant for corroboration of other collateral issues.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
9. In our considered view, learned District Forum has erred in holding that complaint was liable to be dismissed, on account of the appellants having not placed on record the copy of First Information Report and some other material showing as to in whose favour the apple boxes were released by the police. As a matter of fact, it was the truck of respondents No.1 & 3. The consignment, which was being carried in the truck, at the time of occurrence of the accident, was also in possession of respondents No.1 & 3 and, therefore, the police was supposed to have released it in favour of respondents No.1 & 3, they being in its lawful possession. In any case, there was other evidence (in the form of admission by Page 5 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ respondent No.3) to the effect that apple boxes were not lifted from the spot by the appellants, but by respondent No.1.
10. Before filing of complaint, appellants served a legal notice upon all the three respondents. Respondent No.2, Forwarding Agency, in its reply to the notice admitted that 609 apple boxes were loaded in the truck. Respondents No.1 & 3, who filed separate replies, but through the same Advocate, though denied that there were 609 apple boxes in the truck and claimed that there were only 451 apple boxes, yet they did not state that apple boxes were lifted from the spot by the appellants themselves. Not only this, respondent No.3 in his reply specifically stated that after occurrence of the accident, Union Rohroo, which means respondent No.1, had taken away the apple boxes from the spot and it was the Union, who was liable to pay the claim, if any, to the appellants.
11. Respondent No.1, Union, in its reply to the legal notice did not say that apple boxes were lifted from the spot by the appellants themselves. Admission by respondent No.3 in the reply to the notice that apple boxes were taken away from the Page 6 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ spot by the Truck Union and silence by respondent No.1, the Truck Union, in its reply to the notice as to who took away the apple boxes from the spot, gives a complete lie to the averment made in the reply to the complaint by these two respondents that apple boxes were taken away by the appellants.
12. Respondents No.1 & 3 have taken the plea in their reply that documents, Annexures C-1 to C-6 have been procured. Documents, Annexure C-1 to C-5, are issued by the Forwarding Agency, i.e. respondent No.2. However, document, Annexure C-6, is issued by respondent No.1 itself. Of course, the date of this document is 21.09.2009, or say a date five days after the loading of consignment in the truck and four days after the occurrence of accident and there is also ambiguity with regard to the number of truck, because in Annexures C-1 to C-5, number of truck is HP63-2457, while in Annexure C-6, number is HP10B-2457, but the respondents No.1 & 3 have not led any evidence, nor have they pleaded that Annexure C-6 does not pertain to the apple boxes, referred to in Annexures C-1 to C-5. Their simple plea is that Annexures C-1 to C-6 are procured documents. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since Page 7 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ Annexure C-6 was issued after occurrence of the accident, initial part of number, i.e. "HP10B" appears to have been mistakenly recorded in Annexure C-6 and that the second part of number showing the number of vehicle as "2457", is correctly written in both the documents. Annexure C-6 is a receipt issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3, regarding receipt of insurance money at the rate of `5/- per box for 600 boxes. It appears that this receipt was issued by respondent No.1, to shift the liability for the loss of consignment of the appellants on the insurance fund. This conduct of respondent No.1, reflected by Annexure C-6, substantiates the appellants' plea that there were 609 apple boxes in the truck and after the accident respondents No.1 & 3, took away the apple boxes and did not account for the same.
13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, appellants have placed on record certain sale vouchers, Annexures A-1 to A-4, which show that from 15th September, 2009 to 5th October, 2009, apples of royal quality had been fetching a price of `1,200/- to `2,100/- per box and the GRs C-1 to C-5 show that the quality of their apples was royal Page 8 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ supreme, or royal AAA. However, looking to the fact that consignment had been damaged in the accident and, therefore, it must not have fetched the price, which it would have had but for the damage, we assume that the consignment fetched half of the average price prevailing in the market, as is indicated by Annexures A-1 to A-4. The average price according to Annexures A-1 to A-4 comes to around `1,200/- per box. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation, on account of the price of apple boxes at the rate of `600/- per box for 609 apple boxes. The amount works out at `3,65,400/-.
14. As a result of the above stated position, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order set aside. Complaint filed by the appellants is allowed and respondents No.1 & 3 are ordered to pay a sum of `3,65,400/-, as compensation for financial loss caused to the appellants, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 06.01.2010, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `10,000/- to each of the appellants, as compensation for harassment, mental torture etc. They are further Page 9 of 10 Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus Rohroo Truck Operator Union & Ors.
(F.A. No.208/2014) ________________________________________________________ ordered to pay `10,000/- (consolidated), on account of litigation expenses.
15. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member October 31, 2014.
*dinesh* Page 10 of 10