IMPORTANT POINT
Goods damaged in short circuit due to fire – Liability of DTDC will extend to its destination place.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 25.03.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2013 styled as M/s Sidh Sai Traders Vs. M/s D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo Ltd. and Others, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the respondent No. 1 (complainant) had filed the consumer complaint No. 05 of 2013 before the District Commission, Pauri Garhwal alleging therein that vide consignment No. D-4900069 dated 26.03.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2, it had handed over the valuable off season branded readymade garments worth Rs. 2,48,781/- to the respondent No. 2 for delivery of the same at The Loot (India) Pvt. Ltd., C-1, B-44, GIDC-VAPI- 396191, Gujrat. In the first week of April, 2011 the respondent No. 1 inquired about the delivery of the goods at the destination place, whereupon it was told that the goods were lodged in truck No. HR55-K-6736 which caught fire at Manesar on Delhi – Jaipur Highway and on account of the said fire, the goods loaded in the truck were damaged. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 1 lodged the claim with the appellants, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed a consumer complaint before the Commission below.

3. The consumer complaint was duly contested by the appellants and they have filed their written statement wherein it was pleaded that short circuit occurred in the truck at Manesar and on account of the said short circuit, the truck caught fire and in the said fire, the truck alongwith the goods carried therein, were destroyed. The consumer complaint is barred by time and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

4. The respondent No. 2 has submitted its written statement alleging that the answering opposite party has booked the consignment, but it was not insured. The answering opposite party is the collection agent of the appellant No. 1, who has worked as per the instructions of the appellant No. 2. The responsibility of answering opposite party was limited to the sending consignment to the appellant No. 2 and he has completed his duty and he has, therefore, became discharged from any liability. There was no negligence on the part of the answering opposite party, therefore, he has not liable for the said occurrence, hence the complaint be dismissed against him.

5. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, has allowed the complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2016 and directing the appellants and respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent No. 1 within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.

6. Having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have preferred the present appeal as appellants alleging that the impugned judgment and order is against law, facts and merits of the case. The Commission below has not considered the written statement and evidence filed by the appellants; there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants; the goods were not destroyed / damaged on account of any negligence on the part of the appellants. As per record, it has revealed that short circuit occurred in the truck at Manesar and on account of the said short circuit, the truck caught fire. It is further contended that the Commission below itself held that the respondent No. 1 has not shown as to how the opposite parties are liable to be pay compensation; it was the duty of the respondent No. 1 to get the goo