Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President
& Thiru Kayal Dinakaran, Member
SRI NAGALAKSHMI LORRY SERVICE & ANR.—Appellants/Opposite Parties
versus
N.S. GANESH BABU & ANR.—Respondents/Complainants
A.P. No. 863 of 1997—Decided on 13.1.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants/Opposite Parties :Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, Advocate.
For the Respondents/Complainants:Mr. R. Singaravelu, Advocate.
The liability of transport operators for loss of entrusted goods and the limitations on maintaining a complaint after receiving an insurance claim.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 27, Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Birla Yamaha Ltd., Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants booked a Yamaha Motor Cycle to be delivered at Madurai through the opposite parties, lorry transport operators. The vehicle was not delivered at the destination, and the complainants made an insurance claim for the loss of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties were liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of the vehicle entrusted to their custody. However, the court also held that the complainants, having received the insurance claim, could not maintain the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order of the Forum below was sustainable in law, considering the loss of the vehicle and the insurance claim received by the complainants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Birla Yamaha Ltd. and Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. to establish the liability of the opposite parties and the limitations on the complainants' right to maintain the complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the Forum below was set aside, and the complaint itself was dismissed.
Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—The appeal is directed against the order dated 26.9.1997 in O.P. 380/1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North).
2. The appellants are the opposite parties, transport operators while the respondents are the complainants.
3. Succinct facts may be related for understanding the crux of the issue involved for consideration in this action.
4. The complainants booked a Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No. TAA 4919 at Madras to be delivered at Madurai through the opposite parties, lorry transport operators. The freight was agreed to be paid on effecting delivery of the vehicle. The said vehicle was not at all delivered at the destination by the opposite parties. It appears, the complainants made an insurance claim with regard to New India Assurance Company Ltd., Madurai, and the claim for the loss of the vehicle have been settled in his favour for a sum of Rs. 14,000/-.
5. The complainant would say that the non-delivery of the vehicle at the destination at Madurai would tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, transport operators.
6. Alleging the factors as above, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
7. The opposite parties, lorry transport operators, in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part. They would further contend that while the vehicle, after having been booked was in their custody, a theft of the vehicle had taken place and consequently they lodged an F.I.R. in the concerned police station for tracing out the vehicle. There is no negligence on their part. The complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed.
8. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 14,000/- towards the loss of the vehicle with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- within two months from the date of its order failing which the complainant would be at liberty to invoke Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite parties resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. S.R. Rajagopal.
10. On service of process, the respondents/complainants entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. R. Singaravelu.
11. We heard the arguments of respective learned Counsel for the parties.
12. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below is sustainable in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
13. There is no pale of controversy that the motor-cycle in question was entrusted by the complainants to the opposite party, lorry transport operators for effecting delivery at Madurai. It is also not in dispute that the freight charges were deferred to be paid after effecting the delivery of the vehicle at Madurai. In such circumstances, it cannot at all be stated that the complainants had not at all availed of the services of the opposite parties, lorry transport operators for consideration for transporting the vehicle from Madras to Madurai.
14. Admittedly, while the vehicle was in the custody of the opposite parties, a theft had taken place. Whatever be the reason for the loss of the vehicle, the opposite party, lorry transport operators are squarely liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of the vehicle entrusted to their custody on the face of the decision emerging from the Apex Court of the country in the case of Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Birla Yamaha Ltd., I (2000) CPJ 42 (SC)=III = AIR 2000 SC 1047.
15. Pertinent it is at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Apex Court of the country in the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., I (2000) CPJ 7 (SC)=II =2000 (1) CTC 556. The Supreme Court in that
