Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
BISWANATH - Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 422 of 2008 and 167 of 2009 from Order dated 25.8.2008 in Complaint Case No. 17/0/03 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal
Decided on : 23-04-2013
Carrier's Liability - Consumer Protection - Carriers Act, 1865, Section 10 - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) - Carriers Act, 1865, Section 3
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant entrusted goods to the Respondent for transportation. The goods were not delivered, and the Respondent was held liable for the loss suffered by the Appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Respondent was liable for the loss of the goods and was directed to reimburse the Appellant for the full value of the goods, freight charges, and interest.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the carrier for non-delivery of goods, the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, and the retrospective effect of an amendment to the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the carrier's liability is absolute and that the carrier is liable for the loss or damage to the goods caused by its own negligence or the negligence of its agent. The court also determined that the Appellant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the amendment to the Act did not have retrospective effect.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Respondent's appeal and allowed the Appellant's appeal, directing the Respondent to pay the full value of the goods, freight charges, and interest to the Appellant.
ORDER
Ashok Bhan, President - Complainant and the opposite party before the State Commission have filed these Appeals against the order and judgment dated 25.8.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, the State Commission ) in Complaint Case No. 17/0/03 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the complaint has directed the Respondent Transporter to pay compensation of Rs. 3,13,128 being 50% of the value of the consignment to the Complainant for the loss suffered by it.
Facts:
2. Complainant/Appellant firm, M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Appellant") entrusted a consignment of 204 pieces of 80 Galvanized Medium Screwed and Socketed Tubes to the Respondent Transporter (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") on 28.11.2000 for transportation and delivery to Ambari Gram Panchayat, District Cooch Bihar vide invoice No. TD/CAL/STP/Dir/48/1191. On the same day, another consignment of 206 pieces of 80 Galvanized Medium Screwed and Socketed Tubes was entrusted by the Appellant to the Respondent for transportation and delivery to Marich Bari Kholta Gram Panchayat, District Cooch Bihar vide invoice No. TD/CAL/STP/Dir/48/1192. The total value of both the consignments was Rs. 6,26,256.67. Respondent acknowledged the receipt of consignments by issuing consignment Notes No. BRT/5228 and BRT/5229 both dated 28.11.2000. The freight charges of Rs. 17,018 were paid to the Respondent by the Appellant. However, on 28.2.2000 the Appellant came to know that the consignments were not delivered to the consignees in Cooch Bihar. On taking up the matter with the Respondent, Appellant was informed vide letter dated 8.3.2001 that the lorry driver and the owner of the lorry in which the consignments were sent committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the goods. It was further informed that an FIR was lodged by the Respondent on 13.2.2001 against the lorry driver and the lorry owner and in fact one person was arrested and presented before the Magistrate. Appellant sent a legal notice dated 12.6.2001 to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 6,26,256.67 towards the value of the consignments entrusted to it. On 3.7.2001, Respondent's Advocate sent reply to the legal notice denying any liability towards the Appellant for the lost goods. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs. 6,26,256.67 towards value of the consignments, Rs. 17,018 for refund of freight charges and Rs. 2,05,708.60 as interest.
3. Respondent Transporter, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement contesting the complaint, inter alia, on the grounds; that the material was lifted from "TISCO at owners risk" and they supplied only truck for transportation of the goods; that on 4.1.2001, the Sales Manager of the Appellant Company verbally intimated to them that the consignment was delivered on 5.2.2001 but on 28.2.2001 they again informed that the consignment had not been delivered; that the FIR was lodged against the Truck owner/driver on the basis of which one person was arrested; that the Appellant is not a "consumer" as they are engaged in commercial activities.
4. State Commission after considering the facts, pleadings and evidence led by the parties, held that the Appellant had complied with mandatory requirement of serving the notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. That since the Respondent had received the goods under proper acknowledgement, it was incumbent on the Respondent to compensate the Appellant for the loss suffered by it for non-delivery of the goods, but the State Commission restricted the relief to 50% of the value of the goods on the ground that the Appellant was partly negligent in not getting the goods insured which he had sent "on owner's risk". 50% of the loss was directed to be borne by the Appellant. Complaint was partly allowed and the Respondent was directed to reimburse the loss
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
