National Consumer Disputes Redressal
P.K. Transport Corporation vs Bhilwara Synthetic Ltd. on 12 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: III(2006)CPJ445(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.8.1996 directing the appellant-opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 4,60,870 with interest @ 15% p.a. from 11.12.1992 till the payment with cost of Rs. 5,000.
2. The appellant-opposite party, transporter have received the consignments of yarn to be transported to Ludhiana under six motor receipts between 4.9.1991 to 27.11.1991. These consignments were to be delivered to M/s. Sekhri Trading Company, Ludhiana upon delivery of the motor receipts. The motor receipts along with invoices and Hundies were sent through its bankers Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd., Bhilwara and Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Branch Bhilwara. M/s. Sekhri Trading Company, Ludhiana had to take the motor receipts from the two Banks at Ludhiana after paying the price of the goods, before taking delivery of the goods. The total value of the goods under six motor receipts was Rs. 4,60,870. The bankers of the company returned the motor or goods receipts to the complainant as the same were not retired from the Bank by M/s. Sekhri Trading Company, Ludhiana, after making payment of the price to the Banks. The goods receipts were not collected by M/s. Sekhri Trading Company, Ludhiana, therefore, the appellants were asked to rebook the goods from Ludhiana to Bhilwara but they failed to do so. Thus, the appellant-opposite party neither re-delivered the goods nor paid the price of the goods. The complainant claimed, therefore, a sum of Rs. 4,68,870 from the opposite party as Calue of the goods and Rs. 1,34,019 as interest at 24% p.a. along with Rs. 50,000 as travelling expenses and Rs. 7,000 as cost.
3. The appellant-opposite party claimed that it had been the practice that the goods not only under these goods receipts but goods under numerous other goods receipts had also been sent as they related to sale and purchase transaction between the seller and purchaser, and that the goods were delivered after transportation to the purchaser M/s. Sekhri Trading Company and the consignment was sent to the opposite parties in due course. Almost in all cases, M/s. Sekhri Trading Company never retired documents from bankers. The goods were delivered accordingly under the instructions by the complainant. Payments were made by M/s. Sekhri Trading Company by pay order directly. Mrs. Sekhri had taken over the business following the death of her husband. Regarding the arrangements for making payments by the buyer of the goods to the complainant, Mr. S.P. Sharma visited the office of the M/s. Sekhri Trading Company and had finalised the matter of payments and monthly instalments were paid by the company. Consequently, the matter could not be decided by Consumer Fora.
4. We have heard the parties and have gone through the record.
5. The goods were admittedly delivered without receipts. No written agreement has been produced to establish the alleged instructions to deliver the goods. The receipts indicated that the consignments covered by this Special Lorry Receipt were required to be stored at the destination under the control of Transport Operator before delivery to the order of the consignee Banks. Consequently, under no circumstance the appellant could deliver the consignments to any one without the authority from the Bank or without endorsement.
6. The fact that it was very well known to the opposite parties-appellants that the collection of the price through the Bank was condition precedent to the delivery of the goods to the purchaser who in written submission had to obtain the goods receipts from the Bank after payment. Some of the pleas were taken after the arguments were completed before the State Commission. Many of these pleas taken in written submission were not taken in the written version.
7. One of the pleas taken after conclusion of argument before the State Commission was that Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Ram Kumar Gupta on behalf of the complainant was not appropriate and was defective. However, this plea was not pressed before this Commission. Besides, such a plea has been taken just to delay for on this ground complaint could not be dismissed. At the most defect could have been required to be removed.
8. The next point taken in written submission is that complaint was barred by limitation of one year. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 10.3.1993. The consignments were booked during the period from 5.9.1991 to 27.11.1991. The limitation period on the date on which the complaint was filed was not prescribed in Consumer Protection Act. As such it was ordinary period of 3 years. It was only in June, 1993 when the provision under Section 24A relating to limitation was inserted providing limitation of two years.
9. In view of allegation of fraud, it was pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable. It is not essential that in the case of fraud, etc. complainant should be asked to knock the doors of the Civil Court, for the State Commission is presided over by Retired High Court Judge and is comprised of other very learned Members of Commission. The Commission was and so competent to decide these questions. It has got no force more particularly in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. V (2003) SLT 185 : III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC) : 2003 CTJ 849.
10. The plea that since the goods were to be delivered at Ludhiana and, therefore, cause of action of deficiency in service arose at Ludhiana and not at Bhilwara. The question of lack of territorial jurisdiction in entertaining " the complaint by the State Commission, would not arise for the consignments were booked with the opposite parties at Bhilwara and, therefore, part of cause of action did arise at Bhilwara conferring jurisdiction on Rajasthan State Commission. This plea was also not " pressed before us and it has been rightly decided by the State Commission.
11. As regard the letter of J.P. Agarwal, complainant has written to M/s. Sekhri Trading Company, it was clarified that M/s. Sekhri Trading Company had made payment within one week by way of instalments and as such it was considered sympathetically as amount of Rs. 50,000 was sent to the complainant/ respondent. There is no reference that the two Bank Drafts related to any of these six consignments in question. Thus, it had not been established that any payment was made by M/s. Sekhri Trading Company to the complainant in connection with six consignments in question.
12. In view of the written agreement to deliver the goods only as per instructions on motor receipts, neither the goods nor ownership rights in the consignment could be transferred to any person including invoiced party without getting the documents retired and endorsed by the concerned Banks to deliver the goods after making fully payment. The consignee was the Bank and not the invoiced party as such the delivery of the goods were unauthorised.
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs of Rs. 5,000.