Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member and B.K. Taimni, Member
ASSOCIATED ROAD CARRIERS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
KAMLENDER KASHYAP AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 473 of 1999 and First Appeal Nos. 66, 151 of 2000
Decided on : 10-01-2008
Consumer Protection Act - Liability of Carriers and Insurance Company - Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1965, Section 33 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - The court held that the complainants were covered under the definition given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also ruled that the State Commission had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court rejected the plea of arbitration, stating that the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The court also discussed the liability of carriers and the Insurance Company, holding that the carriers were liable for the damage caused during transit and the Insurance Company was not liable due to the absence of privity of contract with the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants booked an order for a Mini Off-set Press to M/s. Auto Print Machinery through its Marketing Manager. The machinery was dispatched through a carrier without the complainant's permission and was received in a damaged condition. The complainants suffered a loss and claimed compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants were covered under the definition of a consumer and had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court rejected the plea of arbitration and held the carriers liable for the damage caused during transit. The Insurance Company was not held liable due to the absence of privity of contract with the complainant.
Issues: The issues involved the definition of a consumer, territorial jurisdiction, plea of arbitration, liability of carriers, and the liability of the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, the Carriers Act, and the Sale of Goods Act. The court emphasized the additional remedy provided by the Consumer Protection Act and the requirement of notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. The court also considered the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act in determining the liability of the carriers and the Insurance Company.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals of the carriers and the manufacturer, confirming the order passed by the State Commission. The Insurance Company was not held liable, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member - These three appeals have been filed against a common order of Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the appellants in these three appeals to pay Rs. 4,29,445 along with interest @ 18% and cost of Rs. 5,000 to the complainants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the complaint of complainants, owners of M/s. Lucky Off-set Printers, Shri Kamlender Kashyap and Smt. Champa Devi.
2. Appeal No. 66 of 2000 has been jointly filed by opposite party No. 1, M/s. Auto Print Machinery Manufacturer (P) Ltd. and its Marketing Manager, Sh. A.S. Bakshi, opposite party No. 2.
3. Appeal No. 151 of 2000 has been filed by insurers Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Appeal No. 473 of 1999 has been filed by the carriers, M/s. Associated Road Careers Ltd.
5. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellants in aforesaid appeals have filed these three appeals.
6. The brief facts are as under:
M/s. Lucky Offset Printers, Bilaspur booked an order for Mini Off-set Press to M/s. Auto Print Machinery through its Marketing Manager, Sh. A.S. Bakshi on 31.12.1997. A sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid by Bank Draft to Sh. A.S. Bakshi, Marketing Manager of opposite party No. 1, the manufacturer. The complainants gave three options in writing, namely, T.C.I., Patel and Nitco for carriage of the machine from Coimbatore to Bilaspur. However, contrary to the options by the complainants for transportation of the machinery, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 dispatched the machinery through Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Chandigarh without the permission and consent of the complainant/respondent. The consignment was received on 5.3.1998 in damaged condition. The consignment was not opened since it was duty of the qualified Engineer to be deputed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for opening the box. The complainants took a note on goods receipt from the carriers/opposite party No. 4 that the box was in damaged condition. Mr. B. Subramanium, authorized Engineer opened the box on the next day i.e. 6th March, 1998 and wrote a letter to the opposite party No. 2 about the damage caused to the machinery. The complainants wrote to the opposite party to replace this machine with another machine. The requisite papers as were required by the opposite party No. 1 were sent. Though M/s. Auto Print Machinery wrote that they were not liable for the loss caused in transit, however, they also informed that they were taking up the matter with the Insurance Company to indemnify the loss for it was alleged that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had taken the transit insurance from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. At the time of placing the orders, the complainants were given to understand that immediately after booking the machine, the complainants would get numerous orders for printing from various persons and that the machinery should be sent to them within 10 days. They suffered loss of Rs. 5,36,995 as well as payment of Rs. 4,05,410 for the purchase of machinery, carrier charges, Rs.13,035, unloading charges Rs. 500, telephone call charges Rs. 2,000, other expenses 5,000 and rental/stacking charges Rs. 5,000. They had also claimed Rs. 9,67,940 with interest @ 18% from the date of delivery of the consignment.
7. Opposite party No. 1, M/s. Auto Print Machinery and opposite party No. 2, Shri A.S. Bakshi, Marketing Manager of opposite party No.1 contested the matter, inter alia, on the ground that the machine had been purchased for commercial purpose. The complainant firm was not a consumer under the terms and conditions of sale for immediately after the consignment left the factory, all the risks connected with the delivery of the machinery passed on to the buyer and that they were not responsible for any act of the opposite party No. 3 who transported the machinery. The guarantee given by them related to the defect not to damage which might have occurred in transit. As such they were not liable. The primary liability for damages, if any, would lie on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
