Amit Strips vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. on 27 August, 2015
20. From the bare perusal of the order of the Hon'ble National
Commission in First Appeal No.43 of 2008 - M/s Associated Road
Carrier Ltd. vs. M/s Pioneer Products Ltd. (Supra), it is clear that
when the goods are not transported by the Common Carrier and are
intentionally kept with themselves for whatever reason, the provision
would not be attracted and where there is no loss or injury to the
goods, but the common carrier wrongly or illegally refuses to deliver
goods and the person entitled to delivery initiates action for non-
delivery, then Section 10 will not apply. In the instant case, the
appellant (complainant) has not proved that the common carrier had
not informed him regarding non-delivery or loss of the consignment.
It appears that the transporter informed the appellant (complainant)
regarding loss of the consignment, therefore, provisions of Section 10
of the Carriers Act and Section 16 of the Carriage By Road Act, 2007
are applicable in the instant case. The facts of the judgments cited by
the appellant (complainant) is quite distinguishable from the facts of
the instant case, therefore, the above judgments do not help the
respondent (complainant). In the instant case, the appellant
(complainant) did not send notice to the transporter / carrier under
// 15 //
Section 10 of The Carriers Act, 1865 or Section 16 of The Carriage By
Road Act, 2007. The above provisions are applicable in the matter
related to Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant (complainant)
did not serve notice upon the transporter under Section 10 of The
Carriers Act, 1865 or Section 16 of The Carriage By Road Act, 2007 and
he violated the provisions of Section 10 of The Carriers Act, 1865 or
Section 16 of The Carriage By Road Act, 2007, therefore, the complaint
is not maintainable.