Transporters have the same liability as insurers in case of non-delivery of consignments, and are expected to deliver consignments in perfect condition unless damaged due to reasons for which the transporter is not responsible.

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—Appellant is a transporter. Consignment worth Rs. 1,78,409 was booked with it for delivery to respondent No. 2. The truck by which the goods were booked was also carrying other material and when it entered into District Mathura it was robbed by the robbers. The driver lodged report with the police about the occurrence.

2. Vide impugned order dated 10th August, 2005 the appellant has been directed by the District Forum to compensate the respondent to the extent of value of the goods, i.e., 97,2008 and also Rs. 1,500 towards cost of litigation.

3. Through this appeal appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that goods were booked at owner’s risk and, therefore, the appellant did not have any liability if these were damaged or robbed or destroyed during transit.

4. In common parlance the booking of goods at owner’s risk means some damage to the goods in transit or some unforeseen circumstances without any negligence of the driver or the occupants of the truck.

5. The Supreme Court has placed transporter of goods who receive consignment against consideration on the pedestal of an insurer meaning thereby that the transporter has the same liability as that of the insurer in case of non-delivery of the consignment to the requisite person. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Nath Brothers v. Best Roadways Ltd. I (2000) CPJ 25 (SC).

6. The appellant also contended that since in the GR which is the document of contract between the parties no guarantee was given by the appellant for indemnifying the loss of the consignment as it was well known to the consignor that the appellant shall not be liable for any loss or damages to the consignment.

7. In our view this contention is of no substance as the appellant was required to deliver the consignment in perfect condition unless and until it was damaged due to reasons for which the appellant was not responsible i.e., an act of God or some such mishap. However, the transporter who receives consignment for transportation is supposed to and expected to be aware of the apprehension of robbery or theft on the way particularly in the area where the law and order situation has a bad reputation. In order to insure the safe delivery of the consignment the appellant could have taken extra caution either by insuring goods even by charging extra amount from the consignor or providing security during transit to avoid such an accident. But in no way it can escape from the liability of compensating consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to its negligence.

8. Service of transport as contemplated under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be performed in perfect manner as envisaged by Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.

Section 2(1)(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

9. Had it been a case of some act of God or that of the nature the appellant was within its right not to compensate the respondent by invoking the clause mentioned in the GR that the goods are being accepted on owner’s risk. But if the loss is due to the negligence of the transporter, transporter has no other option than to indemnify the same.

10. In view of the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.

11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal dismissed.

–