IMPORTANT POINT
Where incident of fire was a result of short circuiting in the engine of the vehicle, so inference can very well be drawn on the basis of such short circuiting that no timely action had been taken by the appellant for the purpose of maintenance of the vehicle to avoid such short circuiting and the short circuiting was on account of improper and negligent maintenance of the vehicle.

S.C. Vyas, President—Feeling aggrieved by order dated 3.9.09, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short), in complaint case No.193/08, this appeal has been preferred by the or of that complaint case, who has been directed to pay Rs.2,46,440 along with interest by way of compensation to the complainant respondent on account of loss to the goods loaded in the transport vehicle of the appellant herein and was being transported to another destination.

2. In nutshell the case of the complainant, before District Forum, was that on retirement he was to transport his household articles from Bilaspur to his home village Aurethi. The appellant herein was contacted for that purpose and goods were loaded in vehicle No. CG0A-5010 £or the purpose of transport. Fare of Rs.1,600 was agreed between the parties out of which, Rs.500 was paid in advance. In the way the vehicle caught fire and household articles of the complainant respondent were burnt totally, on account of that fire. As per the assertion of the complainant, the value of the goods loaded in the truck was Rs.2,46,440. He demanded that amount from the OP and when the amount was not paid then consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3. The complaint was contested by the appellant OP on the defence that it was never informed to the transporter as to what articles have been loaded in the truck, their value was also not intimated. Alongwith the goods the owner himself and his other family members were travelling and on account of short circuit, in the engine, during journey, the incident of fire to the vehicle happened, resulting in total loss of the vehicle as well as the articles loaded therein. It has been contended that it was an act of God and was not on account of any negligence on the part of the appellant or his employee, so nothing was payable by way of compensation.

4. District Forum has not agreed with the contention of the appellant and allowed the complaint.

5. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.

6. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards photocopy of a document, Annexure A2, which is said to be loading slip, bearing signature of the transporter and it has been argued by him that only Rs. 500 was paid, at the time of loading and it was made clear to the owner of the property that the booking was at the owner’s risk and the goods are required to be insured by the owner. It has been submitted that even then no action was taken by the respondent complainant and no value of goods was ever informed to the appellant nor any insurance company was contacted for insurance.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on Section 3 of the Carriers Act, 1865 and submitted that as per the provisions of this section, the liability of the appellant herein is restricted to Rs.100 only as no description was provided by the owner of the property to the transporter, as per the articles included in the schedule of the Act and therefore the liability was restricted.

8. We have considered these arguments. The FIR lodged by the carrier is on record, which shows that the incident of fire happened on account of short circuiting in the engine. Though the matter has been reported to the police, but the final report has not been produced by any of the parties. As the incident of fire was a result of short circuiting in the engine of the vehicle, so inference can very well be drawn on the basis of such short circuiting that no timely action had been taken by the appellant for the purpose of maintenance of the vehicle to avoid such short circuiting and the short circuiting was on account of improper and negligent maintenance of the vehicle on the part of the appellant himself, which has caused loss to the owner of the goods as well as to the appellant also in respect of the vehicle. Looking to this negligent act of the app