Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President Miss. Heena Thakkar; Mr. D.K. Poddar; Mr. Narendra Gupta, Members
RAIPUR SURGUJA TRANSPORT - Appellant
Versus
SAHASRAM NAGWANSHI - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/2015/188.
Decided on : 30-01-2016
Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; None for the Respondent, for the Respondent
Liability of the common carrier under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 is not limited, and the carrier can be held liable for damaged goods despite the limitations mentioned in the Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Transport of Goods - Carriage by Road Act, 2007 - Rule 12 - The court discussed the liability of the common carrier under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and ruled that the appellant was liable to pay for the damaged goods despite the limitations mentioned in Rule 12 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent booked a Color Television for delivery and paid freight charge. Upon receipt, the Television was found to be fully damaged. The appellant denied any deficiency in service, claiming the goods were safely transported and delivered.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation to the respondent for the damaged goods.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was liable for the damaged goods and if the dispute fell under consumer jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability of the common carrier is not limited as per Rule 12 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, and the respondent was entitled to compensation for the damaged goods.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the District Forum.
ORDER
Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.3.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. CC/151/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) as under:
(a) To pay the respondent (complainant) an amount of Rs. 14,990 along with freight charge Rs. 70 and interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.9.2011 till realisation of the amount.
(b) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent (complainant) towards compensation.
(c) To pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the respondent (complainant) towards cost of litigation
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.5.2011, the respondent (complainant) booked vide receipt No. 599708 a Colour Television Sansui 29 through Raipur Surguja Transport for delivery at Pendra and paid Rs. 70 towards freight charge. At the time of booking of the goods, the respondent (complainant) was told that the goods (Television) will be transported in the appropriate vehicle and will be safely delivered at the destination, but the respondent (complainant) received the goods on 18.5.2011 at the condition to which he has not expected. The goods (Television) was in fully damaged condition and picture tube was also broken. If the goods (Television) had been transported by taking proper precautions, the goods (Television) would not be damaged. Thus the appellant (O.P.) committed deficiency in service by transporting the goods negligently and committed deficiency in service. The respondent (complainant) sent notice to the appellant (O.P.) and demanded compensation, but the appellant (O.P.) did not give any reply thereof. Hence, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed written statement and averred that the appellant (O.P.) did not commit any deficiency in service. The appellant (O.P.) has safely transported the goods and as per instructions of the respondent (complainant) the goods was delivered to the respondent (complainant). The goods (Television) was safely delivered to the respondent (complainant) on 18.5.2011. The respondent (complainant) has filed false complaint for obtaining compensation from the appellant (O.P.). The respondent (complainant) has received the goods (Television) in good condition and acknowledge the same. After obtaining delivery of the Television on 18.5.2011 till 3.6.2011 during use of the Television, if the Television was damaged, then the appellant (O.P.), is not responsible for paying any compensation to the respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) filed false complaint for extracting money from the appellant (O.P.). The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant) as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
5. The respondent (complainant) has filed documents. The documents are post receipt, complaint made by the respondent (complainant) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur, Police Hastakshep Ayogaya Apradh KiSuchna, receipt dated 14.5.2011 issued by the appellant (O.P.), Bill dated 15.7.2009 issued by Deepak Electronics.
6. The appellant (O.P.) has also filed documents which are original and photocopy of receipt dated 14.5.2011 issued by Raipur Surguja Transport, Raipur (C.G.).
7. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the G.R. No. 59708 was not issued in favour of the respondent (complainant) and it was issued in favour of Shri Mansul Ali Khan, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not
