State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
North Eastern Carrying Corp. Ltd., vs M/S. Nagarmal & Sons on 6 January, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 06.01.2009 First Appeal No.1170/2006 (Arising from the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by District Forum(North) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No.208/2005) North Eastern Carrying Corp. Ltd., ..Appellant. 9062/47, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi Versus M/s. Nagarmal & Sons Respondent 4581, Cloth Market, through Mr. Kapil Mitra, Mahavir Bazar, Delhi advocate. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 11.09.2006, passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant was held guilty for deficiency in service for having not refunded the cost of the consignment booked with it for delivery as the consignment caught fire and directed it to pay cost of Rs.27,968/- with interest @9% besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Case of the respondent leading to the impugned order, in brief, was that the respondent purchased goods worth Rs.27,968/- from M/s. J.P. Handloom vide Bill No.832, on 24.09.2002. The said goods were entrusted with the branch of the appellant at Sanjay Gandhi Chowk, G.T. Road, Panipat vide transport booking receipt No.104936. The said goods were booked for destination Shillong and were sold at Rs.29,235/- to M/s. Hanuman Bux Moti Lal vide bill No. CR/-58 dated 25.09.2002. The said goods never reached the destination and the appellant did not bother to inform the parties about the fate of the goods. After several communications the appellant declared that the goods were burnt in transit and the respondent was advised to submit the original goods receipt alongwith copy of the invoice at their Panipat Branch. On 30.10.2002, the respondent submitted the same through its Panipat Business Link M/s. J.P. Handloom. The appellant after taking the original documents, slept over the issue of making payments to respondent. That the party at Shillong M/s. Hanuman Bux Moti Lal after receipt of bill dated 25.09.2002 from the respondent anticipated the delivery of goods and made appropriate arrangements for further sale. The fate of goods were not made known to them by the appellant and their agents and as a goodwill gesture demand draft dated 23.10.2002 drawn on Syndicate Bank was sent to the respondent by their clients at Shillong. Later, on receipt of information from the respondent that the goods were burnt in transit, M/s. Hanuman Bux Moti Lal made a representation to the appellant dated 09.01.2003 making a claim of Rs.32,158/-. The appellant did not reply to the said representation and no compensation was given. On 03.05.203 another reminder was given to the appellant in addition to numerous tele-calls and personal visits but all in vain. The actual weight of the consignment was mentioned in goods receipt as 140 kg whereas the charges were made for 200 Kg. Cover(insurance) charges of Rs.168/- were charged and Rs.40/- and Rs.10/- and Rs.15/- were charged for statistical charges, Hamali charges and cartage respectively totaling Rs.1234/-. Consignment value was marked as Rs.27,968/- in the goods receipt by the appellant.
3. In its reply the appellant averred that the goods were booked by M/s. J.P. Handloom, Panipat and not by the respondent, as alleged. The invoice filed along with the GR does not mention the name of the respondent as it was represented by the consignor M/s. J.P. Handloom that it shall itself take the delivery of the goods at Shillong. The appellant denied that the respondent books the said goods. The goods were in fact booked by M/s. J.P. Handloom which was to take delivery itself. M/s. Hanuman Bux Moti Lal claim that they have purchased the said goods. However, as far as appellant is concerned it has privity of contract only with the consignor M/s. J.P. Handloom. The appellant denied that there was any occasion for the respondent to contract with the appellant. Morever, since the goods have been destroyed in fire, the appellant is not liable for the loss of goods. The appellant denied that the respondent submitted the documents. The consignor M/s. J.P. Handloom only has privity of contract with the appellant and it was specifically informed to M/s. J.P. Handloom that since the goods had been destroyed in fire in an unforeseen incident, the appellant is not liable for the loss. The appellant denied that M/s. Hanuman Bux Moti Lal had purchased the said goods. The appellant was not under any obligation to inform any third party about the fate of the goods. The appellant duly informed about the same to M/s. J.P. Handloom with whom it entered into a contract of carriage. The appellant further averred that the demand draft has nothing to do with the goods in question. As far as representation made by M/s. Hanuman Bux is concerned it was informed that only M/s. J.P. Handloom has contract with the respondent and the appellant would not entertain any other party. The appellant further averred that the respondent or M/s. Hanuman Bux do not have any right to make any representation or claim any compensation from the appellant.
4. As is apparent, the main plank of the appellant is that since goods were destroyed in the fire, it was not liable for the loss of goods and further that it was specifically informed to M/s. J.P. Handloom that since goods had been destroyed in the fire in an unforeseen incident it was not liable nor was it under any obligation to inform any third party about the fate of the goods, whereas it had duly informed M/s. J.P. Handloom with whom it had entered into the contract.
5. In our view none of the pleas raised by the appellant cut ice as it is a matter of practice that bills are issued in the name of self for transportation purpose and copies are issued in the name of purchaser. It is transporters practice followed by its users for the convenience of transporters. As regards the plea that the goods were booked by M/s. J.P. Handloom who had sold the same to M/s. Hanuman Bux Moti Lal at Shillong, there is no force as the documents on record show that M/s. J.P. Handloom sold goods to respondent and issued bills in the name of self and copies in the name of the respondent. Aforesaid documents establish the right of respondent. So much so letter of subrogation was called from M/s. J.P. Handloom in favour of respondent. M/s. J.P. Handloom sold the goods to respondent and respondent arranged to send the goods through appellant to his client M/s. Hanuman Bux and therefore neither M/s. J.P. Handloom nor M/s. Hanuman Bux had any direct link.
6. In our view the District Forum has erred in awarding interest as there was no contract between the parties to pay interest as to the liability of the appellant to pay interest in case of loss of the consignment. Interest is paid only if there are equitable grounds. In the instant case respondent has already been awarded cost of the consignment besides compensation for deficiency in service as well as cost of litigation.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons we partly allow the appeal by setting aside the interest awarded by the District Forum and maintain the rest of the order and direct the appellant to pay further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and also to the District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 06th day of January 2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri