AMRITSAR TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs Rajiv Kumar

-THE petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainants had booked a consignment with the petitioner for transportation from Mumbai to Delhi. When this consignment reached Delhi in the godown of the petitioner, it caught fire and the goods were lost, in view of which, the complainants lodged a claim with the petitioner and when it was not getting sorted out, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,95,000 being the value of the consignment along with interest @ 15% p. a. from 9th April, 1994 till the date of payment and Rs. 700 as cost. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, who accepted this only to the extent that the interest awarded was substituted by a lump sum payment of Rs. 20,000 on account of mental agony. Not satisfied with this relief, this revision has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the material on record. The booking of consignment and, its having caught fire in the godown of the petitioner is not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that, on the GR, no value has been mentioned, hence both the lower Fora could not have granted Rs. 1,95,000 as claimed by the complainant.

We have very carefully gone through the material on record. The figure of Rs. 1,95,000 has been mentioned in the complaint, which of course has been denied by the petitioner in his written version but when we see the letter dated 9th April, 1994, issued by the respondent to the petitioner it is clearly mentioned therein that the value of the consignment is Rs. 1,95,000. Letter dated 9. 4. 1994 reads as follows: "dear Sirs we are sending herewith 15 (15) case/s containing Aromatic. Chemicals/flavours/industrial Perfumery Compounds valued for Rs. 1,95,000 which please arrange to send by lorry service to Delhi for delivery to self. Freight: To pay case No. 2943/15 (Mark: D. S.)Yours sincerely for Hemani Aromatics. "

WE also see the invoice brought on record before the District Forum, where in the value of the consignment has been clearly given as Rs. 1,95,000 and there is writing on the proforma invoice that the consignment is "to self Delhi". In our view, this material and the conclusion reached by the District Forum and the State Commission on this point are conclusive enough to support the contention of the complainant that the value of the consignment was Rs. 1,95,000 and has been specifically brought out in the letter dated 9th April, 1994, reproduced earlier. In view of this, we find that this leg of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand on and is dismissed accordingly. A feeble attempt is also made by the petitioner that since the complainant did not file his claim with the Insurance Company, hence, firstly, the complaint of the complainant should be dismissed, or, in the best case scenario, since the petitioner has received only around 10% of the total claim preferred with the Insurance Company, hence the claim of the complainant in this case should also be reduced accordingly.

WE are afraid that we see no merit in this plea also. As per provision of Carriage Act, the transporter is a bailee of the goods. It is incumbent on him to deliver the goods at the destination in the same condition in which it was received by the carrier. This is a clear case where the respondent is covered under the said provision of the Carriage Act and it is incumbent upon the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the loss caused to the latter. Rest is a matter between the petitioner and the Insurance Company. Another attempt has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating that the State Commission was not justified in granting Rs. 20,000 on account of mental agony. We see no merit in this contention either, for the simple reason that the complainant has been deprived of the goods and money for such a long time. In our view, the complainant should have been compensated by way of giving interest. Since that has not been given and the complainants have not filed any revision before us, we refrain from granting any other relief as per law. In our view, award of Rs. 20,000 is really pittance against what the complainant was entitled to. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed.

KEEPING in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. R. P. dismissed.