Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.KM. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member; Mrs. Saria Khan, Member
M/s. A.K. FABRICS—Complainant
versus
M/s. AJANTA TRANSPORT CO. & ANR.—Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No. 124/90—Decided on 15.2.1992
A transporter is liable for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service if it fails to deliver the goods in accordance with the terms of the lorry receipt and the contract entered into between the complainant and the transporter.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - TRANSPORT SERVICE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - LIABILITY OF TRANSPORTER - INSURANCE POLICY - NON-DELIVERY OF GOODS - LIABILITY OF INSURER.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a textile manufacturer, dispatched 29 cases of synthetic cloth worth Rs. 2,23,531.10 through the transporter, M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. The goods were insured with the insurer, The Oriental Insurance Co. The transporter failed to deliver the goods to the consignee, despite repeated demands. The complainant filed a complaint against the transporter and the insurer, seeking compensation for the loss suffered.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the transporter was liable for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service. The Commission found that the transporter failed to deliver the goods in accordance with the terms of the lorry receipt and the contract entered into between the complainant and the transporter. The Commission also held that the insurer was not liable as the goods were not lost but were delivered to a third party by the transporter.
Issues: 1. Whether the transporter was liable for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service? 2. Whether the insurer was liable for the loss suffered by the complainant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The transporter was liable for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service as it failed to deliver the goods in accordance with the terms of the lorry receipt and the contract entered into between the complainant and the transporter. 2. The insurer was not liable for the loss suffered by the complainant as the goods were not lost but were delivered to a third party by the transporter.
Final Decision: The complaint against the transporter was allowed, and the transporter was directed to pay Rs. 2,24,371.10 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 8.1.89 until payment to the complainant. The complaint against the insurer was dismissed.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—M/s. A.K. Fabrics, Madanganj - Kishangarh through its Proprietor Padamchand Bhonch has filed this complaint against (1) M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. (opposite party No. 1) (Transporter) and (2) The Oriental Insurance Co. (opposite party No. 2) (Insurer). Here it may be mentioned that in the original complaint M/s. Jai Bharat Transport Co. was also impleaded as opposite party No. 2. An application was submitted by the complainant and on its application the name of M/s. Jai Bharat Transport Co. was deleted vide order dt. 11.3.91. So now in this complaint we are concerned with the Transporter and the insurer as opposite parties.
2. The complainant despatched 29 cases of synthetic cloth worth Rs. 2,23,531.10 from 28.12.88 to 10.1.89 through the transporter vide 28 luggage receipts on different dates. Anx. 1 is a statement showing bill No., date, L.R. No., dated cases, bill amount, description, name of transporter, return charges, Bank interest upto 31.3.90, total OBC No., date and name of party. It is as under :
S. No. Bill No. Date L.R. No. Date Cases Bill No. amount
1. 1005 28.12.88 259862 29.12.88 1 9508.00
2. 1006 28.12.88 259863 29.12.88 1 7369.50
3. 1007 28.12.88 259864 29.12.88 1 7415.00
4. 1008 28.12.88 259865 29.12.88 1 7382.50
5. 1009 28.12.88 259866 29.12.88 1 7369.50
6. 1018 28.12.88 259867 29.12.88 1 6024.20
7. 1019 28.12.88 259868 29.12.88 1 8069.00
8. 1020 28.12.88 259869 29.12.88 1 8004.80
9. 1021 28.12.88 259870 29.12.88 1 8429.00
10. 1022 28.12.88 259871 29.12.88 1 7493.00
11. 1023 31.12.88 259872 29.12.88 1 8429.00
12. 1033 31.12.88 259873 29.12.88 1 8379.00
13. 1034 31.12.88 259874 29.12.88 1 8385.00
14. 1035 31.12.88 259875 29.12.88 1 8545.20
15. 1036 31.12.88 259876 29.12.88 1 8847.60
16. 1037 31.12.88 259877 29.12.88 1 8154.60
17. 1038 31.12.88 259878 29.12.88 1 7720.60
18. 1039 31.12.88 259879 29.12.88 1 7573.40
19. 1040 31.12.88 259881 29.12.88 1 8015.40
20. 1041 31.12.88 259882 29.12.88 1 8328.10
21. 1049 31.12.88 259887 29.12.88 1 8216.60
22. 1050 31.12.88 259888 29.12.88 1 8875.60
23. 1052 2.1.89 259889 2.1.89 1 7800.00
24. 1053 2.1.89 259890 2.1.89 1 7797.00
25. 1054 2.1.89 259891 2.1.89 1 6310.00
26. 1058 9.1.89 259896 10.1.89 1 7799.00
27. 1059 10.1.89 259895 10.1.89 1 8443.00
28. 1031 31.12.88 259880 31.12.88 1 7847.50
223531.10
3. The complainant has alleged that these goods were booked with the transporter through its agency at Madanganj Kishangarh M/s. Yadav Transport Co. M/s. Yadav Transport Co. supplied LRs of M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. But the delivery office at Calcutta was mentioned on the LRs as M/s. Jai Bharat Transport Co. Calcutta (deleted.). The complainant had presented the original LRs to M/s. Jai Bharat Transport Co. for delivery of the consigned goods but the goods were not delivered to the complainant inspite of repeated demands. The LRs were than presented to the transporter who also did not deliver the goods to the complainant. On enquiry the complainant came to know that the consigned goods were not available with Jai Bharat Transport Co. On further enquiry from M/s. Jai Bharat Transport Co., the incharge Shri Shiv Kumar informed in writing to the complainant to his letter dt. 27.7.89 that they could not deliver the goods to the complainant as the goods had already been disposed in the market. According to the complainant they assured that the matter would be sorted out early with the parties. The complainant repeatedly reminded the transporter and Jai Bharat Transport Co. for sorting the matter on telephonic talk and was always assured for early settlement. The complainant has written letter on 9.10.89 to the transporter. In reply to that the opposite party No. 1 vide its letter dt. 18.10.89 assured the complainant that the matter is being taken up seriously and enquiries are being conducted from the agents. The reminders of the complainant for the delivery of the goods were of no avail. The complainant and his representative personally visited Calcutta and co
