Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner, a limited company engaged for long in the manufacture and sale of aayurvedic medicines, despatched by road several consignments of its medicines from its depot-cum-office at Haldwani, District Nainital to that at Bareilly, through respondent no 1, Vishal Goods Transport Company, Haldwani (respondent no. 2 being the owner of the former), during August 1997 and June 1998. The corresponding Goods Receipts (GRs) issued by Vishal Goods Transport Company were dated 20.08.1997, 24.08.1997, 01.04.1998 (two GRs), 17.02.1998 (two GRs) and 02.06.1998, each GR marking the petitioner as the consignor, self as the consignee and bearing the name of Navrang Transport Corporation under the heading Delivery. It may, however, be noted at this stage itself that in these GRs, some written in Hindi and others in English, Navrang Transport is described in varying details but in none of the GRs is it written as Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly to clearly show that Navrang had any office/depot/godowns at Bareilly from where the delivery of the goods was to be taken. All the GRs were endorsed to the Punjab National Bank, Bareilly. The total value of the medicines so despatched was Rs. 2, 44,217.

7 (a) As against this, Mr. S. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the affidavits, documents and written submissions in the proceedings before the Fora below fully establish the following points: (i) the petitioners goods were sent (by Vishal) from Haldwani to Bareilly on GRs in which the consignee was self; (ii) according to the GRs, the goods were to be delivered to Navrang at Bareilly and collected by the petitioners representative from Navrangs office there; (iii) the tallying details of the GRs and those in the unloading reports (including the petitioners goods dispatched by Vishal from Haldwani and their unloading by Navrang at Bareilly) show that the (petitioners) goods had been delivered to Navrang at Bareilly;

FINDINGS   8 (a) In view of these divergent claims and versions, it is necessary to refer to the records before the Fora below.

(b) Throughout the proceedings before the District Forum, the stand of the complainant (petitioner) was that the consignments were booked by its Haldwani office with Vishal to be sent to Bareilly and the consignee was self, i.e., the complainants representative/agent at Bareilly. The complainant averred that at the relevant time opposite parties (OPs)/Vishal had orally represented to the complainant that transportation of the petitioners goods of from Haldwani to Bareilly was an internal arrangement of theirs with Navrang, as the latter had its office at Bareilly. The complainant thus contended that this being the respondents own arrangement, it was entirely the responsibility of the respondents/Vishal to ensure delivery of the consignments to the complainants representative/agent at Bareilly. That the consignee in each case was marked self is evident from each GR issued by Vishal.