State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narayan Murthy Transport Co. vs P.S. Steel Tubes Ltd. on 10 August, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2489)
Appeal No.208/2011
Instituted on : 30/03/2011
M/s Narayan Murthy Transport Company,
Through - Sri Madhukar Rao,
S/o Sri K. Narayan Swamy,
Having its office at Urla Telephone Exchange,
Gogaon, Ring Road No.02, Raipur City,
Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant
Vs.
P.S. Steel Tubes Ltd.,
Through : Its Director, Sri Suresh Ahuja,
S/o : late Sri Kundanlal Ahuja,
Resident of : 27, Akash Ganga Complex, Supela,
Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Rajiv Sharma, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 10/08/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 04/03/2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.158/2010, whereby the District Forum, has directed the appellant herein, to pay the cost of the goods, which were delivered by the // 2 // respondent/complainant to the appellant/O.P. as carrier for transportation, amounting to Rs.9,05,704/- and also to pay the advance amount paid for the transportation of goods Rs.32,000/-, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Apart from it, further directions of payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- by way of cost of litigation, have also been passed.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent/complainant delivered 500 pieces of Steel Pipes Tubes valuing Rs.9,05,704/- to the appellant/O.P., along with Bill No.1388 dated 28.09.2008 for transportation to Ranipeth (Tamilnadu) by truck No.A.P.07/TT-9779 and the goods were loaded in the truck. Advance amount of Rs.32,000/- was also paid by the respondent/complainant for transportation of the goods. The grievance of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum, was that the goods were sent to M/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited., Ranipeth, (Tamilnadu) through the appellant/Transporter, but it never reached to its destination and when inquiry was made from the appellant/O.P., then no satisfactory reply was given. When continuous inquiries were made, then it was informed by the appellant that in the way, the truck in which goods were loaded, was found missing and was not traceable. First Information Report was // 3 // lodged to Police to that effect. Then, a notice was sent by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/O.P. on 29.12.2008, but, no reply was given. Thereafter a consumer complaint was filed before District Forum seeking compensation on account of non-delivery of the goods, which were handed over to the appellant/Transporter by the respondent/complainant.
3. In reply of the complaint, the appellant/O.P. in the written version has challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum and averred that the driver and cleaner of the truck misappropriated the goods loaded in the truck in the way and thus, it was a criminal breach of trust committed by the employees of the appellant/O.P. A report to that effect was made to the Police. Later on, the Police recovered empty truck, which was available in Police Station, Chillakaluripeth. It has also been averred that thereafter Police registered offence against some persons belonging to Andhra Pradesh. It also recovered the goods, which were loaded in the truck. It has also been mentioned in the written version that it was requested to the respondent/complainant to take the goods on supurdnama, but no action was taken by the respondent/complainant in this regard and thus, the respondent/complainant himself was responsible for not taking the goods, which were still lying in the custody of the Criminal // 4 // Court. The allegation of deficiency in service, has been denied by the appellant.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions raised by both parties and allowed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused record of the District Forum.
6. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards photocopy of a document said to be a complaint made to the some Additional Junior Court, Chillakaluripeth. It appears that in that document, the name of the Court has not been mentioned and it has not been mentioned that whether it was a Sessions Court or Court of a Magistrate. Apart from it, the complaint case No. is also missing. It appears simply a typed document, which shows that probably Police filed some complaint against some persons in some Court, but as the original complaint, has not been filed and the complaint case No. is also missing, so no more inferences can be drawn on the basis of this document. It is just possible that Police, might have recovered some of the goods loaded in the truck, but there is nothing to show that all goods, which were loaded in the truck, have been recovered intact by the Police and are readily available in the same condition to the // 5 // respondent/complainant for delivery to the purchaser. Thus, only from this document, it cannot be said that the respondent/complainant, is in a position to have custody of the goods which were handed over to the appellant for transportation. At the most, it can be said that some crime was committed by the employees of the appellant, in respect of goods loaded in the truck and later on after investigation, some articles have been recovered by the Police and proceedings have been initiated before a Criminal Court.
7. But so far as allegation of deficiency in service against the appellant is concerned, even from this document, as well as from the pleading of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant has failed to deliver the goods to the consignee at it's destination. In fact the goods never reached to the consignee at the destination on account of either some criminal act on the part of the employees of the appellant/O.P or on account of their negligence. Whatever may be the reason, but the fact remains that appellant/O.P. failed to deliver the goods to the consignee and thus, it being a case of non-delivery, the appellant/O.P. committed deficiency in service., so it is liable for payment of cost of the goods, which were handed over to it by the respondent/complainant for delivery to M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipeth, (Tamilnadu), without any deduction.
// 6 //
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/O.P. has further argued that the respondent/complainant has recovered the cost of the goods from the Insurance Company and in future respondent/complainant may also get the custody of the goods from the Criminal Court, where at present the goods are available. Thus the respondent/complainant will be benefited by getting the price of the goods three times.
9. So far as the question of preferring claim by the complainant/respondent before the Insurance Company is concerned, there appears no material in the record of the District Forum, on the basis of which it can be said that any claim was ever preferred and any amount has been paid by any of the Insurance Company to respondent/complainant. So, merely on the basis of arguments of the appellant/O.P., it can not be said that the cost of the goods, have already been paid by the Insurance Company to the respondent/complainant. So far as taking custody of the goods, which are available in some Criminal Court, is concerned, an authority for that purpose, can very well be given by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/O.P. by either executing a Power of Attorney or a Letter of Authority, so in future, the appellant may get the custody of the goods, which are lying in the custody of the Criminal Court. Counsel for the respondent/complainant is ready to provide such Authority and Power of Attorney to the appellant/O.P. // 7 //
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention towards pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transport Corporation of India Ltd., vs. Veljan Hydrair Ltd., II (2007) CPJ 35 (SC), and submitted that if the Transporter had failed to deliver the goods at its destination, then the cost of the goods as well as freight charges are required to be paid by the Transporter to the owner of the goods. He has also referred the judgment of this Commission in the case of Nazimuddin vs. Rupak Kumar Agrawal, in appeal No.465/2010 , decided on 17/01/2011.
11. After having considered the facts of the case and evidence available, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Transport Corporation of India Ltd., (Supra) in their totality, we are convinced that District Forum, has not committed any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order. The order impugned calls for no interference except with this slight modification that the amount awarded by the District Forum to the respondent/complainant will be payable by the appellant/O.P. only after executing an authority along with Power of Attorney, by the respondent in favour of the appellant to enable him to get the custody of the goods, which are available in the Criminal Court of Chillakaluripeth in connection with Crime No.104/2008. With this // 8 // slight modification in the impugned order, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to the cost.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/08/2011 /08/2011 /08/2011