IMPORTANT POINT
Expression “at owner’s risk” does not exempt a Carrier from his own negligence or negligence of his servants or agent.

S.Baidya, J.—A-26/14 and F.A-31/14 have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 13.08.2014 passed in case No.C.C-01/14 and as such both the appeals have been heard together and are liable to be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The case of the appellant-Bibhas Ranjan Bhattacharjee as described in the memo of appeal being No-F.A-26/14, in brief, is that the appellant-complainant was in government service as Associate professor of Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar College, Belonia and after his retirement he decided to leave the state of Tripura and intended to reside at his residence at Flat No-4C, Block No.B – 2C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata-42 and as such contacted the O.P. on 06.04.2013 at their H.O. at Shymali Bazar, Agartala for transportation of all his household goods from Belonia to Kolkata and accordingly, the O.P.-respondent prepared a list of all articles to be shifted and agreed to carry the same from Belonia to Kolkata for an amount of Rs.52,576/-. It has also been stated that the packaging party of the O.P. packed all goods in 38 large packets and carried the same in a vehicle to their H.O. and thereafter, the complainant visited the H.O. of the O.P. on 15.05.2013 where the O.P. officially booked 38 packages vide C.N. No. A081X38 and received payment of Rs.52,576/- towards vehicle hire charge, packing charges and service tax etc. and handed over documents to the complainant.

3. It has also been stated that as per undertaking the goods would reach to Kolkata within 10-12 days and accordingly, the complainant going to his residence at Kolkata was waiting to receive those goods and thereafter, the complainant on 04.06.2013 sent a letter to the O.P.-respondent enquiring about the reason for causing delay in delivering the goods when the O.P. informed by letter dated 01.07.2013 that the truck bearing registration No-HR 55 L 7518 carrying the goods had been hijacked from 9th Miles, Guwahati, Assam and on this issue a case had already been registered with Baishisthapur P.S. and at the same time the O.P. assured the complainant that the truck along with goods would be recovered very soon. It has also been stated that after waiting for a considerable time the complainant served one advocate notice upon the O.P. to fulfil his promise within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and then O.P. replied to the Advocate notice by sending a reply on 04.11.2013 whereby the O.P. tried to avoid his liability and responsibility stating that the complainant did not insure the goods at the time of booking whereas at the time of booking nothing as such was communicated and discussed with the complainant by the O.P.

4. It has also been stated that after hearing the case and considering the pleadings and the evidences, the Ld. Forum allowed the complaint and passed the award by the impugned judgment and granted compensation of Rs.1,69,110/- towards loss of consignment and Rs.52,576/- being the transportation charges and Rs.5000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost.

5. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2014 the appellant has preferred the instant appeal assailing the said judgment on the grounds that the Ld. Forum failed to consider the loss of the complainant and arbitrarily assessed the loss at Rs.1,69,110/- in lumpsum being 1/3rd of the loss amount claimed by the appellant, that Ld. Forum failed to consider that there were 38 large packets and a mere amount of Rs.1,69,110/- towards the goods contained in 38 large packets is not a justifiable amount, that the Ld. Forum failed to consider and allow interest on the compensation amount from the date of booking and hence, the instant appeal has been filed praying for enhancing the quantum of compensation and also the interest on the compensation amount.

6. The case of the appellant-Goutam Debnath as narrated in the memo of appeal being F.A-31/14, in brief, is that the complainant had booked his househol