IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of short delivery of consignment by carrier, a presumption of negligence or criminal act of carrier would arise and it would be for carrier to rebut it.

V. Bakthavatsalu, President – The 2nd Opposite Party is the appellant.

2. The Ist respondent/complainant filed the complaint for recovery of

Rs. 1,03,282.58 n.p and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

3. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is a registered transport contractor and fleet owner and one of the customers of the complainant is M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Pondicherry. The Ist Opposite Party is the commission agent, whose services is utilized to supply vehicles to registered transport companies in Pondicherry and to the complainant on commission basis. The Ist Opposite Party arranged lorry owned by third parties after fixing fright charges and he collects commission for the services rendered both from the party for whom it engages lorry and also from the lorry suppliers. On

28-3-2001 Hindustan Lever Company intimated the complainant that 600 cases of Ponds DFT Magic 100 gms. DEO worth Rs. 14,40,294/- were to be transported from Pondicherry to Ichapuram. Since the lorries of the complainant were engaged on the said date, the complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party to arrange a load for their lorry. The complainant hired a lorry from 1st Opposite Party for carrying the above goods. Ist Opposite Party sent a lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-25-7677 which was owned by 2nd Opposite Party. The complainant paid advance fright charges of Rs. 8,500/- to 1st Opposite Party. The balance fright amount was to be paid on the goods reaching destination and delivery to the consignee. The lorry driven by R. Velu reached the destination on

16-4-2001. The complainant made an enquiry and learnt that the vehicle reached the destination with a shortage delivery of 44 cases worth Rs. 1,03,282.58. On 2-4-2001, the driver of 2nd Opposite Party lodged a complaint at Ongole PS, Andhra Pradesh stating that the goods were stolen. The negligence of the driver of 2nd Opposite Party is evident from the fact that he was negligent by not knowing that the goods were stolen while driving the vehicle. The goods were not fully delivered to the consignor as per the terms of the contract. As per the contract, the consignor deducted the value of the goods from the amounts of the complainant and the complainant was forced to bear the entire loss of the value of the goods. The Opposite Party has not come forward to compensate the loss. The complainant was put to hardship, agony apart from monetary loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant sent a letter dated 15-5-2001 to the Opposite Parties claiming the amount. But the Opposite Parties have not come forward to pay the amount. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is filed for recovery of

the amounts with compensation.

4. The case of the 1st Opposite Party is as follows :

The complainant is not a consumer. The complainant is a firm doing business of transport of Hindustan Lever Ltd. which is an industry manufacturing goods and as such the transaction by the complainant is for commercial transaction. On request of the complainant, 1st Opposite Party directed a lorry owned by 2nd Opposite Party for carriage of goods. The 1st Opposite Party received commission only from the owner of the vehicle i.e. 2nd Opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party is not liable for the loss due to shortage of goods. The complainant is having remedy through provisions of Indian carriers Act and he has to claim the damages only under the Carriers Act.

5. The case of the 2nd Opposite Party is as follows :

The complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The transaction between the complainant and Opposite Party are purely on commercial transaction and as such, the said dispute is not a dispute under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is having his contract agreement with H