National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. N. Radhakrishnan vs M/S. Veebors Freight Carriers & Anr. on 19 November, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1226 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 365/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1227 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 366/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1228 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 367/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1229 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 368/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1230 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 369/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1231 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 370/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1232 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 371/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1233 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 372/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1234 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 373/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1235 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 374/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 375/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1237 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 376/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1238 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 377/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1239 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 378/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1240 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 379/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1241 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 380/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1242 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 381/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1243 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 382/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1244 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 383/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1245 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 384/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1246 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 385/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER,S AGENT M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. VEEBORS FREIGHT CARRIERS & ANR. STAR JUNCTION MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74, JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1303 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 365/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1304 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 366/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1305 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 367/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1306 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 368/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1307 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 369/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. VENUS RUBBER INDUSTRIES AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1308 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 370/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. VENUS RUBBER INDUSTRIES AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1309 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 371/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. VENUS RUBBER WORKS AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1310 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 372/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1311 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 373/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. RUBY RUBBER INDUSTRIES AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1312 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 374/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. VENUS RUBBER INDUSTRIES AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1313 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 375/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. VENUS RUBBER WORKS AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 376/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 377/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 378/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1317 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 379/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1318 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 380/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1319 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 381/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1320 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 365/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 KERELA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 KERELA 2. M/S VENUS RUBBER INDUSTRIES 74 JAMUNALAL BAJAJ STREET, KOLKATA - 700007 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1321 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 365/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 KERELA 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1322 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 384/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1323 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 01/03/2019 in Appeal No. 385/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS STAR JUNCTION, KOCHI-682002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. N. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. RUBBER DEALER & MANUFACTURER'S AGENT, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016 2. M/S. SANKAR RUBBER AT 38/39, JAIBIBI ROAD, GHOSURY, HOWRAH WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For M/s N. Radhakrishnan : Mr. Abraham John, Advocate For the Respondent : For M/s Veebors Freight Carriers : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Advocate
Dated : 19 Nov 2019 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The complainant, who is the petitioner in RP/1226/2019 and RP/1227/2019, RP/1228/2019 , RP/1229/2019, RP/1230/2019, RP/1231/2019, RP/1232/2019, RP/1233/2019, RP/1234/2019, RP/1235/2019, RP/1236/2019, RP/1237/2019, RP/1238/2019, RP/1239/2019, RP/1240/2019, RP/1241/2019, RP/1242/2019, RP/1243/2019, RP/1244/2019, RP/1245/2019, RP/1246/2019, and respondent in RP/1303/2019 and other petitions had been selling goods to Sankar Rubber Industries, Venus Rubber Industries and Ruby Rubber Works. The goods used to be sent through Veebors Freight Carriers, which is the petitioner in RP/1303/2019 and RP/1304/2019, RP/1305/2019, RP/1306/2019, RP/1307/2019, RP/1308/2019, RP/1309/2019, RP/1310/2019, RP/1311/2019, RP/1312/2019, RP/1313/2019, RP/1314/2019 , RP/1315/2019, RP/1316/2019, RP/1317/2019, RP/1318/2019, RP/1319/2019, RP/1320/2019, RP/1321/2019, RP/1322/2019, RP/1323/2019 and respondent No.1 in RP/1226/2019 and other petitions. The case of the complainant is that the lorry receipts issued by the carrier used to be submitted by him to his bank and the bills used to be got discounted from the bank, on the strength of the lorry receipts. This is also the case of the complainant that the consignment could be delivered by carrier to the purchaser only after he had paid to the bank, collected the lorry receipts and submitted the same to the carrier. The carrier, according to the complainant, released goods sent vide fifteen different lorry receipts, to the purchasers, without obtaining the lorry receipts from them. Since the bills were not honoured by the purchasers, the bank of the complainant returned the same to the complainant and debited the amount, which it had paid to the complainant, in his account. Thus, in nut shell the grievance of the complainant is that the goods were released by the carrier to the purchasers, without the purchaser having paid to the bank and having submitted the lorry receipts to the carrier.
2. The Notices were sent by the complainant to the carrier on 13.6.2001 and 04.9.2001, alleging illegal delivery of the goods. The carrier replied to the notice dated 04.9.2001 on 06.7.2001 and to the notice dated 04.9.2001 on 24.10.2001. It was inter-alia stated in the reply sent by the carrier that the goods were delivered at the destination as per the request of the complainant.
3. The complainant thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of 21 separate consumer complaints, impleading the carrier as well as the purchaser as the parties to the said consumer complaints. An application seeking condonation of delay in institution of the consumer complaints was also filed by the complainant before the concerned District Forum.
4. The complaints were resisted by the carrier inter-alia on the ground that the same were barred by limitation. On merits, it was alleged that the goods were delivered to the purchasers on the request of the complainant. It was also pleaded in the written version filed by the carrier that the complainant had never informed to them that he intended to negotiate the documents through bank and that they had not issued any lorry receipt, showing bank to be the consignee. The complaints were also resisted on the ground that the complainant did not prefer any claim under Section 10 of the Carriers Act and therefore the complaints were not maintainable in law.
5. The District Forum having dismissed the consumer complaints, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 01.3.2019, the State commission partly allowed the appeals by directing the carrier to pay the value of the goods, along with compensation quantified at Rs.10,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the carrier is before this Commission by way of RP/1303/2019 and RP/1304/2019, RP/1305/2019, RP/1306/2019, RP/1307/2019, RP/1308/2019, RP/1309/2019, RP/1310/2019, RP/1311/2019, RP/1312/2019, RP/1313/2019, RP/1314/2019 , RP/1315/2019, RP/1316/2019, RP/1317/2019, RP/1318/2019, RP/1319/2019, RP/1320/2019, RP/1321/2019, RP/1322/2019, RP/1323/2019 . Since no interest has been awarded to the complainant at the price of the goods, he is also before this Commission by way of RP/1226/2019 and RP/1227/2019, RP/1228/2019 , RP/1229/2019, RP/1230/2019, RP/1231/2019, RP/1232/2019, RP/1233/2019, RP/1234/2019, RP/1235/2019, RP/1236/2019, RP/1237/2019, RP/1238/2019, RP/1239/2019, RP/1240/2019, RP/1241/2019, RP/1242/2019, RP/1243/2019, RP/1244/2019, RP/1245/2019, RP/1246/2019.
6. The following are the details of the consignments booked by the complainant:
RP No. Lorry Receipt Date Value Name of Consignee Date of complaint 1303/2019 11.1.1999 2,57,150/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1304/2019 16.9.1999 2,84,100/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 17.4.2002 1305/2019 09.9.1999 2,90,100/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1306/2019 11.1.1999 2,57,150/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1307/2019 14.8.1998 2,52,793/-
Venus Rubber Works 17.4.2002 1308/2019 17.8.1998 2,79,290/-
Venus Rubber Works 17.4.2002 1309/2019 01.9.1998 2,76,820/-
Venus Rubber Industries 17.4.2002 1310/2019 16.12.1998 2,52,065/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1311/2019 01.9.1998 2,76,820/-
Ruby Rubber Works 17.4.2002 1312/2019 14.10.1999 2,84,925/-
Venus Rubber Works 17.4.2002 1313/2019 27.1.1999 2,52,065/-
Venus Rubber Works 17.4.2002 1314/2019 15.9.1999 2,84,100/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 17.4.2002 1315/2019 9.9.1998 2,71,150/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 17.4.2002 1316/2019 17.2.1999 1,66,360/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1317/2019 10.7.1999 3,25,100/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1318/2019 20.8.1999 3,03,675/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1319/2019 10.7.1999 3,20,150/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1320/2019 31.8.1998 2,76,820/-
Rubber Rubber Works 17.4.2002 1321/2019 24.9.1998 2,87,395/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1322/2019 23.8.1999 3,04,850/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002 1323/2019 18.12.1998 2,52,065/-
Sankar Rubber Industries 15.7.2002
7. IBA Scheme for recommending transport operators to Member Bank of the said scheme, to the extent it is relevant for the purpose of these petitions, reads as under:
"1.8. It is provided under the Scheme that the Transport Operators will print the Lorry Receipts in the special form prescribed by the Association, for using it under the Scheme and that no separate Notice of a Bank's lien need be given by the Bank to the Transport Operator.
1.9. The Special Form under the Scheme would be issued with the Bank's name as the consignee and would carry on all copies of each set of the Lorry Receipt.
a special Notice and a special Endorsement so that the very fact that a consignment has been covered by the lorry receipt in the special form would ipso facto constitute a notice of the Bank's interest to all offices of the Transport Operator which happen to deal with it and to his delivery office at the destination, in particular.
1.10 Only the Consignee copy (and no other copy) of the lorry receipt in the special form issued by the transport operator is accepted along with bills form the customers who intend to borrow.
1.11 In addition to the bank's name as consignee, an endorsement in favour of the Bank is obtained from the Consignor on the reverse of the Lorry Receipt.
Bank as Consignee 2.6 The name of the Financing Bank from which the consignor intends to borrow should be entered as the consignee at the appropriate place in all copies of a set of the lorry receipts in the special form along with the contact address of the Financing Bank.
2.7 ...... Unless the full name and contact address of the Financing Bank is given on the lorry receipt, as mentioned above, banks should not accept such lorry receipts for discounting.
Special Form and Lay-Out 2.8 Every transport operator recommended by the Association shall maintain two sets of Forwarding Note Forms and Lorry Receipt Forms. One set of each will be in the special form prescribed by the Association as per specimen in Annexures VI and VII (a). These special forwarding note forms shall be used only by those consignors, and these special lorry receipt forms shall be issued only to those consignors, who intend to use the lorry receipts for the purpose of borrowing from any bank, and make a declaration accordingly to the transport operator.
Endorsement and Notice 2.9 Every Lorry Receipt in the Special Form prescribed under this scheme should carry the special endorsement and special notice as shown below.
The endorsement should be printed in red between two parallel transverse lines as under:
_______________________________________________ It is intended to use the CONSIGNEE COPY of this set for the purpose of borrowing from the Consignee Bank ______________________________________________
8. In the lorry receipts filed by the complainant before the District Forum the bank is shown as the consignee. The said lorry receipts clearly show that the goods were consigned to the bank and not to the purchaser and that is why the name of the bank was recorded against the column requiring name and address of the consignee bank. The carrier has placed on record the office copy of the lorry receipts which do not bear the name of the bank but bear the name of the purchaser in the column meant for Consignee Bank's Name and Address. The copies filed by the carrier are patently false since there could be no question of the filling the name of the purchaser in the column meant for the name and address of the consignee bank. The writing in which the name of the consignee is written is also different from the writing in which the name of the consignor is written. Even the lorry receipt filed by the carrier is a special receipt meant only for the consignments where the goods were consigned to the bank and the bills were intended to be got discounted by the consignor for his bank. Moreover, there is a printed endorsement in red colour even on the copies filed by the carrier. The endorsement says that it was intended to use the consignee copy for the purpose of borrowing from the consignee bank. There could be no occasion for the carrier to issue lorry receipt in this format if the purchaser was to be the consignee of the goods. Moreover, the bank of the complainant would never have accepted the lorry receipt and would not have discounted the bills unless the bank was shown as the consignee in the consignee copy of the lorry receipt. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the goods were consigned to the bank and not to the purchaser and this was very much in the knowledge of the carrier when the goods were booked and the lorry receipt were issued. To this extent, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted.
9. The legal issue involved in these petitions is as to whether a valid notice, in terms of Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 was issued by the complainant to the carrier. Though, the Carriers Act, 1865 has since been repealed by Section 22 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, the said Act was inforce at the time when the consumer complaints were instituted in the year 2002. Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 reads as under:
"10. Notice of loss or injury to be given within six months No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of, or injury to, goods (including container, pallets or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods) entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before the institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff."
10. It would thus be seen that the notice to the carrier is required to be given within six months of the time when the loss or injury first comes to the knowledge of the consignor. In Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Associated Roadways (2004) 11 SCC 545, a consumer complaint was instituted before this Commission against a common carrier, seeking compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of the delivery of the goods by the carrier, without obtaining the original lorry receipts from the consignee. The consumer complaint was dismissed by this Commission for want of a notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865. An appeal was preferred by the complainant against the decision of this Commission. Dismissing this appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:
"6. The decision of this Court, which has been relied upon by the National Commission in B.L. Sharma and which is sought to be distinguished by the appellant, is Patel Roadways Ltd. V. Birla Yamaha Ltd. That case is an authority for two propositions; one, that the law relating to common carriers was crystallized under the statute; and second, that the word 'suit' in Section 9 of the Carriers Act would have to be defined to include proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
7. Since the word 'suit' has been used both in Section 9 and Section 10 of the Carriers Act, there is no reason why we should not construe the said word as far as Section 10 is concerned, in the same manner as it was done in Patel Roadways Ltd. qua Section 9. The distinction that has been sought to be drawn between Section 9 and Section 10, namely, that the former creates a substantive right whereas the latter only provides for procedure is unacceptable. Section 9 deals with the rule of evidence to be followed in dealing with cases under the Carriers Act and the rules of evidence are rules of procedure. Besides, the construction of the word 'suit' in Patel Roadways Ltd. did not turn on whether Section 9 was either procedural or substantive.
8. The fact that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not to derogation of any other law does not mean that the rights under the Carriers Act can be exercised, except in accordance with the manner provided under the Act. Section 9 and 10 form an integral scheme by which a common carrier is fastened with liability irrespective of proof of negligence. Merely because the procedure under the Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature does not in any way warrant the abrogation of the requirement to serve notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act before fastening any liability under that Act on the carriers."
11. Two legal propositions emerge from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Mills Ltd.(supra). First legal proposition is that the delivery of the goods without obtaining the original lorry receipts form the consignee would amount to loss of or injury to the goods within the meaning of Section 10 of the Carriers Act. The second legal proposition which emerges is that the provisions of Section 10 of the Carriers Act equally apply to a consumer complaint. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that a notice in terms of Section 10 of the Carriers Act was mandatory before institution of the consumer complaints.
12. Admittedly, the first notice by the complainant to the carrier was given on 13.6.2001. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant had come to know of the delivery of the goods to the purchaser within six months prior to 13.6.2001 or at an earlier date. The learned counsel for the carrier has drawn my attention to the following para of the cross-examination of the complainant recorded before the District Forum:
"Almost all bills were debited on 22.9.1999? (Q) Yes (A) According to you on 29.9.1999 you were well aware that the party did not honour the document and returned (Q) Yes (A) As per Ext. B8 (a) the last dispatch to Venus Rubber was on 14.10.1999 (A) When you were dispatching goods on 14.10.1999, how many consignments pending with the bank? (Q)
13 consignments of the four parties were pending with the bank (A) When documents of goods of couple of consignments were not honoured by the parties, will you send the goods to the same consignees without you having some interest in these consignees?(Q) We have no interest in consignees at all except the business. The consignees had promised that they would pay all the bills by Oc., to Nov., 1999 as they were expecting a loan of Rs.3.00 crores form Punjab National Bank, Calcutta.
Did you receive anything from the consignee assuring payment and taking delivery of the goods (illegible) obligations under agency agreement? (Q) They had promised over phone, subsequently send letter to us which is filed with the forum. (A)."
13. The above referred cross-examination of the complainant would show that by October, 1999, the purchasers had promised to pay off all the consignments by October / November, 1999 since they were expecting a loan of Rs.3.00 crores form Punjab National Bank, Calcutta. Obviously, the purchasers would not have promised to pay for the goods unless they had received the goods. The promise of the purchaser to pay for the goods by October-November, 1999 clearly shows that by October, 1999 the complainant was very well aware of the delivery of the goods by the carrier to the purchasers. Even otherwise, the facts and circumstances of the case indicate knowledge of the complainant about delivery of the goods by the carrier to the consignee. The first consignment, subject matter of these complaints was booked on 14.8.1998, whereas the last consignment was booked on 14.10.1999. The notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was sent about one year and 8 months later on 13.6.2001. As stated in the written version filed by the carrier, the goods dispatched to anywhere in India from Kerala would reach their destination within 14 to 21 days. Though the seller of the goods would wait for a reasonable time for the purchaser to make payment to the bank, collect the lorry receipt and then take delivery from the carrier, he would not, unless he is aware of delivery of the goods to the purchaser, in the normal course of business conduct, keep silent for a long period without asking the carrier to rebook the goods on account of the failure of the purchaser to make payment to the bank and then take delivery of the goods. The seller knows that if the goods remain lying in the premises of the carrier, for a long period, he would have to pay heavy demurrage to the carrier and unless the purchaser has promised to pay the demurrage, it will have to be borne by the seller, along with the cost of the transportation and re-transportation of the goods. The carrier may even dispose of the goods, if delivery is not taken for a long period. The goods may also get damaged, if lying in the premises of the carrier for a long time. Therefore, had the complainant not been aware of the delivery of the goods by the carrier to the purchaser, he would, in the ordinary course have waited for some time say 3-4 months and then would have asked the carrier to rebook the goods to a place and would also have asked the bank to return the documents to him, so that he could hand them over to the carrier for taking delivery of the goods on their re-transportation to his place. No prudent businessman will wait for as much as 1 ½ to 2 ½ years to enquire where the goods sent by him are lying. I therefore, hold that the notice in terms of Section 10 of the Carriage Act was not sent by the complainant to the carrier within six months of coming to know of the delivery of the goods to the purchasers.
14. In P. Rama Rao Vs. P. Nirmala & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 757, the notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was issued by the petitioner on 05.7.1983, more than six months after loss of the goods in an accident. The suit having been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by obtaining a Special Leave. Dismissing the appeal filed by him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:
"4. Admittedly, notice was issued by the petitioner on 5.7.1983 after the expiry of six months' time. A reading of Section 10 would make it clear that no suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of or injury to goods entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of the loss of or injury to the goods has been given to him before the institution of the suit within six months of the time when the loss of or injury to the goods first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. .............. So, a notice under Section 10 is required to be issued to the Insurance Company within six months from the date of the knowledge of the injury to or loss of the goods entrusted for carriage before filing the suit. In fact, admittedly, such a notice was issued on 5.7.1983, namely after the expiry of six months from the date of the accident, namely, 9.7.1982."
In Dr. A. Dayal Vs. Gati Ltd. & Ors., RP/2634 of 2015 decided on 03.3.2016, the complainant sent two consignments, which were found damaged on 21.1.2009. The notice under Section 10 of the Carriage Act was issued after expiry of six months. The consumer complaint having been dismissed on the ground that the notice should have been issued within six months, the complainant approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. The petition was dismissed by this Commission, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. (supra).
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the complainant having not given notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, to the carrier, within six months of his having come to know of the loss of the goods, the consumer complaints were not maintainable. The notice given on 13.6.2001, was an invalid notice, having been given much much later. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the revision petitions No.1226 of 2019 and RP/1227/2019, RP/1228/2019 , RP/1229/2019, RP/1230/2019, RP/1231/2019, RP/1232/2019, RP/1233/2019, RP/1234/2019, RP/1235/2019, RP/1236/2019, RP/1237/2019, RP/1238/2019, RP/1239/2019, RP/1240/2019, RP/1241/2019, RP/1242/2019, RP/1243/2019, RP/1244/2019, RP/1245/2019, RP/1246/2019 filed by the complainant are dismissed, whereas the revisions petition No.1303 of 2019 and RP/1304/2019, RP/1305/2019, RP/1306/2019, RP/1307/2019, RP/1308/2019, RP/1309/2019, RP/1310/2019, RP/1311/2019, RP/1312/2019, RP/1313/2019, RP/1314/2019 , RP/1315/2019, RP/1316/2019, RP/1317/2019, RP/1318/2019, RP/1319/2019, RP/1320/2019, RP/1321/2019, RP/1322/2019, RP/1323/2019 filed by the Carrier are allowed, without any order as to costs. The consumer complaints stand dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER