Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunita Sharma, R.K. Verma, JJ.
THAKUR GOODS TRANSPORT CO. — Appellant
Vs.
KULDEEP ELECTRO CARE — Respondent
First Appeal No. 190 of 2019
Decided On : 24-09-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Dev Thakur.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mehar Chand Thakur.
Liability for non-delivery of consignment and the importance of privity of contract in transportation services.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Transportation of Goods - The Carriers Act, 1865 - [The Carriers Act, 1865, Section 10] - The court found that the complainant hired the services of the opposite party for transportation of goods and directed the opposite party to pay/refund freight charges and the value of misplaced goods to the complainant along with interest. The court also highlighted the lack of privity of contract between the complainant and Vishal Transport Company, and the legal infirmity in the appellant's appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, running a business of electronic items, hired the opposite party for transportation of goods to Jalandhar. The consignment was not delivered, and the consignee deducted an amount from the complainant's account. The opposite party denied any wrongdoing and sought dismissal of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party was liable for the non-delivery of the consignment and directed them to pay/refund freight charges and the value of misplaced goods to the complainant along with interest. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, highlighting the lack of privity of contract and legal infirmity.
Issues: Non-delivery of consignment, liability of the opposite party, privity of contract, legal infirmity in the appellant's appeal
Ratio Decidendi: The opposite party was held liable for non-delivery of the consignment as the complainant had hired their services for transportation. The lack of privity of contract between the complainant and Vishal Transport Company was highlighted, and the legal infirmity in the appellant's appeal was noted.
Final Decision: The court directed the opposite party to pay/refund freight charges and the value of misplaced goods to the complainant along with interest. The appellant's appeal was dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 22.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Mandi in Consumer Complaint No. 65/2018 titled Kuldeep Electro Care Versus Thakur Goods Transport Co.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that to earn his livelihood, he is running the business of electronic and other items under the name and style of Kuldeep Electro Care, Mandi. The opposite party is engaged in the business of transportation. He (complainant) sent two boxes containing various electrical appliances viz induction and LED driver to Crompton Greaves Consumer Electrical Ltd., BX 11-407, 2nd Floor, Near BSF Chowk, Ladowali Road, Jallandhar, Punjab through the opposite party vide delivery challan No. 969, dated 29.12.2016. To his surprise, the boxes dispatched per GR No. 1198, dated 30.12.2016 were not delivered to the consignee at Jallandhar. After becoming aware of the said fact, he (complainant) visited the office of the opposite party time and again to ascertain the delivery of consignment. Matter was lingered on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the consignee deducted Rs. 22,740/- from his account maintained by it, as is clear from the remittance advice dated 29.12.2017. Despite paying freight/transportation charges, the opposite party failed to deliver the parcels/consignment. Notice under Section 10 of The Carriers Act, 1865 was served upon it (OP), but of no avail. He has been harassed and suffered financial loss. The opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice and is/was deficient in rendering the service. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party. Preliminary objections/submissions have been made to the effect that it (OP) simply does the business of collecting goods for being transported by Vishal Transport Company. All goods relating to Crompton Greaves Consumer Electrical Ltd. are collected from the State of Himachal Pradesh by Vishal Transport Company (VTC) since the said company has been given tender to collect the articles for the purpose of transportation. It (OP) collected parcels from the complainant on behalf of VTC and handed over the same to it (VTC) for transportation to Jalandhar. Goods received by it (OP) from VTC are delivered to the concerned party in Mandi Town. Consignment booked by the complainant was delivered to an authorized person of VTC i.e. the driver of the vehicle. VTC and consignee (Crompton Greaves Consumer Electrical Ltd.) are necessary parties to the complaint. The same is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. He has no cause of action. Material facts have been concealed.
4. On merits, it stands admitted that two boxes were booked by the complainant on 29.12.2016 to be delivered at Jalandhar. However, it has been pleaded that after collection, the boxes/parcels were handed over by it (OP) to the concerned person of Vishal Transport Co. for safe transportation to Jalandhar. The complainant never visited its office. It has no knowledge that the consignee deducted Rs. 22,740/- from the account of the complainant. No illegal or wrong act was done by it (OP). Even no notice was received. Neither the complainant has harassed by them nor suffered any loss due to it. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. It has been pleaded that the services of the opposite party were hired for transportation of goods to Jalandhar. He has no connection with VTC. Goods were handed over by the opposite party to VTC because of inter-se arrangement between them. He is least concerned with the said arrangement.
6. Thereafter, complainant and opposite party N
