Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President;
Tmt. R. Vanaroja and Thiru Pon. Gunasekaran, Members
S. GOVINDARAJULU & ANR.—Appellants
versus
SYED BASHA & ORS.—Respondents
A.P. No. 253 of 2001—Decided on 13.2.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. K.K. Sancheti, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2:Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: None.
Lorry brokers cannot escape liability for loss or damage during transportation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Liability of Lorry Brokers - Section 2(1)(d)(ii), Section 2(1)(o) - The court discussed the liability of lorry brokers under the Consumer Protection Act and referred to relevant legal provisions and interpretations. The court held that lorry brokers could not escape liability and modified the liability of the opposite parties from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 30,000.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants entrusted material for transportation, which was mishandled by the opposite parties, leading to loss and damages. The District Forum dismissed the complaint against some opposite parties and awarded compensation against others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties 1 and 2 could not escape liability and modified the liability from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 30,000.
Issues: The main issue was the liability of lorry brokers for loss or damage during transportation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that lorry brokers could not escape liability under the Consumer Protection Act and referred to relevant legal provisions and interpretations to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2 was fixed at Rs. 30,000 instead of Rs. 75,000.
Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President—The complainants in C.O.P. No. 47/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, are the appellants.
2. No doubt, they got an order against the opposite parties 3 and 4 before the District Forum. Inasmuch as the opposite parties 1 and 2 were exonerated by the District Forum, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The necessary facts are as follows : The complainants entrusted certain material to opposite parties 1 and 2 on 28.8.1998 for transportation from Coimbatore to Phursungi. They paid Rs. 7,800 along with Rs. 250 as commisison/brokerage to opposite party No. 2, opposite party No. 1 being the proprietor of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 entrusted the consignment to opposite party No. 3 owner of the lorry and opposite party No. 4 was the driver. The consignment did not reach the destination. It was learnt that the cosignment was unloaded at Bangalore. The complainants had to move the police and after filing necessary petition before the Criminal Court for return of property got the consignment back and made their own arrangements for transport for delivery of the consignment. In the process, they had to spend a lot of money. Their goodwill also was spoiled due to delayed delivery. All the complications arose due to the deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
4. Opposite parties 1 and 2 though admitted to the entrustment and the occurrence of the offence contended that they were only lorry brokers, fixing lorry and once lorries got fixed, their job would get over and they could not be held liable for loss or damage, that only the 3rd and 4th opposite parties were liable and further that the District Forum, Coimbatore, had no jurisdiction. The opposite parties 3 and 4 remained ex parte.
5. On the side of the complainants, Exs. A1 to A14 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex. B1 was marked.
6. The District Forum found that opposite parties 1 and 2 got brokerage from the complainant and entrusted the consignment to opposite parties 3 and 4 and from that stage, the job of opposite parties 1 and 2 got over, that opposite parties 3 and 4 alone were responsible for the loss. By order dated 8.2.2001, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as against opposite parties 1 and 2 and passed an award for Rs. 77,000 against opposite parties 3 and 4.
7. Before us, the learned Counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that so far as the award portion was concerned, they were satisfied and the quantum was not being challenged. But, however, inasmuch as the complaint had been dismissed against opposite parties 1 and 2, the District Forum was in error and that it ought to have allowed the complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 as well. The learned Counsel submitted that even lorry brokers would be liable and complaint against them would lie. In support, he relied on the following decisions :
(1) The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Madurai-9 v. Murugan, Proprietor, Murugan Transports, Sivakasi, 1997 (1) CTC 654.
(2) Kishan Roadways v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., III (1996) CPJ 51 (NC).
(3) Express Goods Service v. Standard Textile Mills, I (1995) CPJ 205 (NC)=1986-96 National Commission & Supreme Court on Consumer Cases page 3228 (NS) and
(4) The order passed by this Commission in O.P. Nos. 78 and 100/2000.
8. Per contra, Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted as follows : The delay, on which the complaint is founded, stemmed from a criminal act, and not from any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 were not included in the FIR. The goods were delivered in full and admittedly there was no shortage. Opposite Parties 1 and 2 were as much innocent victims of the criminal act as opposite parties 3 and 4 as the appellants. Even transport companies operating with their own fleet of trucks have to accept such risks as p
