AJIT GOODS TRANSPORT CO. vs PREM SEHGAL

M/s Ajit Goods Transport Co. appeals against the order of the District Forum, Ambala allowing the complaint preferred by the respondent-consumer.

IN the complaint, it was specifically alleged that the respondent had purchased various items of cloth vide bills No. 5655, 1742, 15847, 2711172, 135809 and 0136, apparently purchased at Delhi and booked for transport to Ambala, through the agent of the appellant M/s. Ram Avtar & Sons. The total value of the consignment was Rs. 22,213/- and when it did not reach Ambala at all and was apparently lost in transit, he approached the transporter for redress, but to no effect. INevitably, he knocked at the door of the District Forum. In the reply filed by the appellant it very fairly admitted the factor of the goods having been duly booked and those of having hired out the transport services, and further that the consignment was untraceable. However, the value thereof was sought to be put in dispute. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases including Ex.R-1 adduced on record by the appellants. The District Forum further recorded the fact that the learned Counsel for the appellants in the context of the fact that the consignment was never handed over to the complainant admitted the deficiency in the transport services undertaken. Primal emphasis, therefore, was on the value of the consignment.

The District Forum relied primarily on Ex.R-1, which had been produced by the appellants themselves for accepting the evaluation at Rs. 22,000/-. It also noticed that the Counsel for the appellant had also admitted that they had paid Rs. 10,000/- as part payment of the goods receipt and would get back this amount in case the consignment was subsequently found and delivered over to the complainant'' Consequently, the complaint was allowed with the direction of paying the balance of Rs. 12,000/- with costs since admittedly the goods had remained untraced.

MR. S.S. Saini, the learned Counsel for the appellant with considerable vehemence had in the first instance confined himself only to Section 3 of the Carriers Act for submitting that the respondents were not entitled to any compensation at all. It was sought to be argued that the goods receipt on its face did not mention the full value of the consignment and, therefore, Section 3 of the afore-mentioned Carriers Act placed a legal bar upon any claim in such a situation. The submission of the learned Counsel is apparently based on a misapprehension or misreading of the provisions of Section 3 of the Carriers Act. Even a bare reading of that Section would show that the same applies only to the specific kind of goods enumerated in Schedule 1 of the Act. Admittedly the ordinary clothes booked by the respondents would not even remotely come within the special clause of goods which have been listed in the said schedule. Inevitably, the primal submission of the appellant must fail and is rejected.

EQUALLY, the stand of the learned Counsel for the respondent of this point is patently meritoriously. It was pointed out that the goods receipts expressly mentioned and attached the list of the bills of the goods sought to be transported. This was duly exhibited as P-2 and was not the subject matter of any challenge. The said bills which not only mentioned the price of the clothes, but also the details of its quality totaled to a sum of Rs. 22,213.50p. Once that is so, the legal argument of the appellant also has no force because on a fair reading of the provision, the attached list of bills was part and parcel of the goods receipt and the value of the consignment was clearly declared and mentioned to the carriers. As an argument of last resort, Mr. Saini had then attempted to argue that he District Forum at Ambala did not have any territorial jurisdiction merely because the goods were booked at Delhi. Reliance was sought to be placed on 1993 CPC 849 Y.P. Das and Another v. Shimla Development Authority for submitting that jurisdiction had been confined to Delhi alone. The aforesaid argument has only to be noticed and rejected. It is manifest from the order of the District Forum that any objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction. Either at the very threshold or at the final stage of arguments was not pressed at all. Consequently, even if any such fragmentary stand was pleaded, the same must be deemed to have been waived because the appellants willingly participated in the trial and invited a decision on merits. Apart from the above, the authority relied upon by Mr Saini indeed goes against his stand because the majority view clearly is that a mere indication in a contract of jurisdiction at one place does not necessarily exclude the other Courts having territorial jurisdiction, unless the same has been exclusively and singularly confined to one point in explicit terms. It was not even Mr. Saini''s case that the appellants had employed such exclusionary terminology as the word ''alone'' ''only'' and ''exclusive'', or the like in the ouster clause.

FOR the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed.