Mr. Justice R.K. Varma, President—The following order of the Commission was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Varma, President:

This is an appeal filed by the transporter Mahavir Transport, Alot against the order dated 16.1.95 passed by the District Forum, Ratlam in Complaint Case No. 11/94 whereby the appellant-opposite party No. 1 as well as opposite party No. 2 have been jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs. 1,07,702/- as compensation to the complainant-respondent together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from 27.12.93 till the date of payment and have been ordered to pay the said compensation within a period of one month from the date of order under appeal.

2. It is not disputed that the complainant booked with the appellant-opposite party No. 1 Mahavir Transport 127 bags of Soyabean weighing 120.65 quintals of the value of Rs. 1,07,702.10 paise as per the then prevailing market price, for being transported from Alot to Messrs Prestige Foods Ltd., Dewas.

3. It is also not disputed that the appellant-opposite party No. 1 issued a Receipt No. 269 dated 27.12.93 showing entrustment of the consignment of 127 bags of Soyabean by the complainant to the appellant. The said receipt is on record. The appellant-opposite party No. 1 arranged a truck through the agency of one Bharat Transport Company-opposite party No. 2 in which the complainant's consignment of Soyabean bags were loaded for transport to the distination M/s. Prestige Foods Ltd. at Dewas. The said consignment never reached the consignee at Dewas, and despite efforts made on the part of the complainant neither the consigned goods reached the consignee nor was the price of goods paid to the complainant by the appellant.

4. The complainant, therefore, filed the instant complaint for compensation on account of the deficiency in service on the part of transporter resulting in total loss of consignment of Soyabean which the complainant had entrusted to the appellant-opposite party No. 1 for transporting the same to the destination at Dewas.

5. The appellant-opposite party took the plea in defence that it had received the consignment for transporting the same through the agency of opposite party No. 2 on the basis of commission charged by it. It becomes clear from the perusal of the receipt of goods for transport issued by the appellant-opposite party No. 1 Mahavir Transport that the carriage charges were fixed at Rs. 1,800/- by the appellant-opposite party No. 1. The bill No. 6 dated 27.12.93 for the amount of Rs. 1,07,702-10 paise issued by the complainant-supplier of Soyabean to the consignee M/s. Prestige Foods Ltd. have been filed on record and it discloses the name of the transporter as Mahavir Transport Company, Alot.

6. A copy of the challan which appears to have been issued by the opposite party No. 2 Bharat Transport Company which is also placed on record, shows that the truck on which consignment of Soyabean in question was loaded belonged to one Sunil Sharma and the name of driver of the truck is Harjeet Singh Gurudayal. The truck, which was arranged by opposite party No. 2 for transporter opposite party No. 1, appears to be engaged in M.P. Delhi Roadlines, Loha Mandi, Indore.

7. The District Forum on the appreciation of evidence adduced on record, has come to the conclusion that for non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee the appellant-opposite party No. 1 Mahavir Transport as well as opposite party No. 2 Bharat Transport Company were both jointly or severally liable to compensate the complainant for loss of goods consigned for delivery to the consignee at Dewas, where the truck carrying the Soyabean consignment never reached.

8. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4, the owner of the truck and the M.P. Delhi Roadlines with whom the truck was apparently engaged, took the plea in substance, that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant. The District Forum has accepted their stand and has accordingly not held them liable for defi