ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s Order dated 13/10/2016 in Complaint No. CC/96/255, which was partly allowed.

2. For Convenience, the parties are being referred to as per the Complaint before State Commission.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 13.01.1995, Complainant No.1 hired the services of the OP at Mumbai for transportation by road of a consignment comprising 521 cases of pharmaceutical products from Mumbai to its office at Delhi on stock transfer basis. The consignment was valued at Rs. 23,54,436.33/-. The OP accepted the consignment vide Stock Transfer Note No. 011605 dated 13.01.1995 and issued Lorry Receipt No. 434302 dated 13.01.1995 for carriage from Mumbai to Delhi. At Delhi, out of the total 521 cases, only 167 cases were delivered, and in a badly damaged condition. The contents were soaked in diesel, contaminated with dust and dirt, with some contents missing and several cartons packed in gunny bags instead of the original factory packing. The loss and damage were surveyed at the premises of the Complainant No. 1 by the Surveyor, Sqn. Ldr. Kapil Mohan (Retd.), who submitted his Survey Report dated 08.02.1995. As the medicines in the damaged cases were unfit for human consumption, they were destroyed by burning. The OP issued Damage Certificates Nos. 573, 574 and 275, all dated 19.01.1995. Thereafter, the Complainant No.1 lodged a claim with the OP vide registered letter dated 27.03.1995, addressed to its New Delhi & Bombay offices, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,16,255/- which was acknowledged by the OP vide letter dated 01.04.1995. It was further stated that the Complainant No.1 had insured the consignment vide Policy No. 111200/0/0/21/95/00002 with the Complainant No. 2. After scrutiny of the claim and documents, the Complainant No. 2 settled the Claim for Rs. 10,16,255/-. Thereafter, Complainant No.1 executed a Letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney dated 10.05.1995 for Rs.10,16,255/- in favour of the Complainant No.2. Thus, CC No. 96 of 255 was filed jointly by both the Complainants seeking recovery of Rs. 10,16,255/- with interest.

4. The OP resisted the Complaint by filing its Written Version. The handing over of the goods by Complainant No. 1 to the OP for transportation from Bombay to Delhi was not disputed. However, it was contended that the Complainants had failed to establish any negligence on the part of the OP. It was asserted that the accident did not occur due to any mistake or negligence of the Driver, but on account of circumstances beyond the control of anyone, which were sought to be characterized as an “Act of God”. The OP further contended that there was no valid subrogation executed by Complainant No.1 in favour of Complainant No. 2. It was also contended that the Lorry Receipt under which the consignment was loaded in the truck specifically stipulated that all disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi and, therefore, the State Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. On these grounds, the OP prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

5. The State Commission, vide the Order dated 13.10.2016 passed the following order:

“-: ORDER :-

1. Consumer complaint is partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) payable to complainant No.2.

2. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,16,255/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-five only) to complainant No.2 together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 19/12/1996 till realisation.

3. Opponent is directed to comply the order within a period of sixty days from the date of order, failing which rate of interest will be 15% p.a..”

6. Being aggrieved the OP has filed the instant Appeal challenging the impugned Order.

7. In the instant Appeal, the OP