R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 11. 8. 2004 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('national Commission' for short) affirming the order dated 14. 6. 2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('state Commission' for short ).

( 2 ) THE appellant is a 'common carrier' as defined in the Carriers Act, 1865 ('act' for short ). The respondent entrusted a consignment (an Hydraulic Cylinder) measuring 2700 kg, covered by sale invoice dated 30. 4. 1996 to the Appellant for transportation from Patancheru to Bharuch, the consignee being "self. " The Appellant issued Consignment Note/lorry Receipt dated 10. 5. 1996 to the Respondent in that behalf, wherein the declared value of the consignment was shown as Rs. 583440/=. As M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. , Bharuch, the customer for whom the consignment was intended was not in a position to clear the consignment, the Respondent, by letter dated 8. 11. 1996 instructed appellant's Patancheru Branch to re- book the consignment from Bharuch to Patancheru. For this purpose, the respondent enclosed the original (consignee's copy) of the lorry receipt as also its invoice dated 30. 4. 1996, with the letter dated 8. 11. 1996. The respondent assured that they will clear all dues including up and down freight charges at appellant's Patancheru office. In view of it, the appellant's Patancheru Branch instructed its Baruach Branch by letter dated 14. 11. 1996 to rebook the consignment and endorsed a copy of the said communication to the Respondent. The appellant sent a letter dated 22. 11. 1996 instructing the respondent to send the consignee copy with all freight and demurrage charges by a Demand Draft to the Bharuch office to enable the Bharuch office to re-book the consignment to Patancheru. The Respondent approached the appellant's Patancheru office several times and explained that it had already furnished the consignee copy and that it had also assured that payment will be made at Patancheru, and therefore, the consignment should be re-booked. Finally the Appellant's Patancheru office informed Respondent that the consignment was re-booked vide LR No. 21401 dated 22. 1. 1997 from Bharuch to Patancheru. As there was no information about the arrival of goods at Patancheru, inspite of constant follow up, the respondent sent letters dated 8. 8. 1998, 13. 10. 1998,

7. 11. 1998 and 8. 12. 1998 to the appellant, calling upon it to locate the consignment and deliver it, making it clear that if the consignment was not delivered, it will claim Rs. 5, 83, 440/- being the cost of the consignment. Respondent also stated that it will not pay any charges for the consignment. The appellant sent a reply dated 15. 12. 1998 stating that "the matter is under process to locate the goods" and requested the respondent to "bear" with it for some more time to enable it to revert back with reference to the status of the matter. This was followed by letter dated 21. 6. 1999 wherein the appellant assured the respondent that "the matter is under inquiry" and that the status of the consignment will be confirmed within a short while. By another letter dated 3. 7. 1999, the appellant informed that "the process of locating the goods is going on" and requested the respondent to furnish another copy of the invoice as also the sketch of the machine. The respondent's Senior Officer, Marketing, (Sri Sriramamurthy) visited the appellant's office and furnished them. Even thereafter, the consignment was not delivered. Therefore, after serving a notice dated 27. 10. 2000, through counsel, demanding payment, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on 5. 7. 2001, alleging that the non-delivery of consignment amounted to deficiency of service and therefore, the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 5, 83, 440, being the cost of consignment with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 8. 11. 1996 as damages for deficiency of service. Su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document