National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kedar Das vs Jalaj Motor Transport Co. And Ors. on 2 August, 2000
ORDER
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (Member)
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 13th September, 1996 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur dismissing the complaint filed by the Complaint on the ground that the District Forum, Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
2. Briefly the facts of the case giving rise to this Petition are that the Complainant hired the services of Respondent, i.e. Transporter to carry the consignment from Delhi to Jodhpur. As the goods were not delivered to the Complainant, he filed a complainant, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jodhpur claiming from the Respondent the value of goods i.e. Rs.11,702/- alongwith interest @ 18%. The Complaint was contested on behalf of the Transporter on various grounds inter-alia that the Jodhpur District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum after considering the material placed on record, allowed the complaint and directed the Transporter to pay the value of the goods i.e. Rs. 11,702/- with interest @ 18%. The amount of Rs. 2,500/- was also awarded by way of compensation for travelling expenses, business loss and mental distress. The District Forum returned the finding that the District Forum, Jodhpur had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. The carrier being dis-satisfied with the order of the District Forum, approached the State Commission by way of an Appeal. The appeal filed by the Carrier was allowed by the State Commission by the impugned order. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the District Forum, Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there was a condition in the Goods Receipt which provided that Jaipur Courts alone will have jurisdiction in respect of claims and matters arising under the consignment of goods entrusted for transportation. The Complainant has assailed the order of the State Commission by filing this Revision Petition.
4. We have heard the Counsel for the parties on the question of jurisdiction as well as on the merits of the case. On the question of jurisdiction, a large number of authorities have been cited by the Counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions. We are of the opinion that as the matter pertains to the year 1993 and moreover the amount involved in this case is very meager i.e. only Rs. 11,000/- and odd, we are not inclined to deal with it and record any finding on the point of jurisdiction and leave the question of jurisdiction open and reserve the right of the Carrier to take it up in other appropriate cases. On merits, it was contended on behalf of the Carrier that the goods were destroyed in a fire and the fire did not take place on account of an act of negligence on the part of the Carrier. It was for the Complainant to prove that the fire in which the goods were destroyed was on account of negligence on the part of the Carrier. The onus was on the Complainant and he failed to discharge the burden by adducing any cogent and reliable evidence. As such no liability can be fastended upon the Carrier.
5. In view of the provision of Section 9 of the Carrier Act we find no merit in this contention. Section 9 of the Carrier Act is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:-
Plaintiffs, in suits for loss, damage or non-delivery, not required to prove negligence or criminal act.:-
In any suit brought against a common carrier for the loss, damage or non-delivery of {goods (including containers, pallets or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods) entrusted} to him for carriage, it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that such loss, damage or non-delivery was owing to the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, his servants or agents."
6. The next contention raised on behalf of the Carrier is that the District Forum wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- by way of compensation for travelling expenses, business loss and mental distress. We find force in this connection. The claimant was awarded interest @ 18% p.a. by way of compensation. Further compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- warranted. So, we set aside the order of the District Forum so far it relates to the award of Rs.2,500/- by way of compensation. Rest of the order of the District Forum is maintained. In the result, we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum with modification to the extent indicated above. The Revision Petition is disposed of int he above terms.