Careway Transport of India vs KUSHAL TEA COMPANY

A common order in all these petitions will suffice. It is the opposite party which is the petitioner in all these matters. Respondents were complainants in the complaints filed by them complaining deficiency in service by the opposite party, a common carrier.

COMPLAINANTS in all these petitions sent various consignments of tea to M/s. State Enterprises, a common consignee. The consignment of tea was entrusted to the petitioner. Freight charges in all these consignments were agreed to be paid by the consignee at Jaipur, the destination at the time of taking delivery by the consignee. Documents like invoice, goods receipt and other connected documents to the consignment were negotiated through the State Bank of Travancore at Coonoor, Tamil Nadu for getting the payment of the value of the consignments from the branch of the Bank at Jaipur. It would appear that in the meanwhile complainant discounted the value of the consignments from the Bank at Coonoor and got the value of the goods. However, subsequently documents were returned by the Bank to the complainants unpaid. Allegation was that the petitioner delivered the consignments to the consignee without production of invoice, goods receipt and other documents. Complaining deficiency in service all these complaints were filed. It is the contention of the opposite party that since goods were not taken delivery of for a long period there was no alternative left for the petitioner but to auction the goods as per the terms of the goods receipt and that the money realised by auction of the goods was not even sufficient to meet the freight. District Forum after examining the case came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and directed the petitioner to pay to each of the complainants the value of the goods with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of entrustment of the goods to the petitioner till payment. Cost of Rs. 1,000/- in each of the complaints was also awarded to the complainants.

Petitioner appealed to the State Commission which again examined the contentions of the petitioner. Reference was made to Clauses 6 and 7 of the goods receipt on which petitioner relied. These clauses are as under : "6. The Transport Operator shall have the right to dispose of other goods after 30 days of arrival after giving to the Consignor, the Consignee Bank, and the holder interested (including the Banker under Clause 1 above) at least a minimum of 15 days'' notice of such disposal of goods. 7. In either case the Bank or claimant with Bank''s authority shall be entitled to the proceeds, less freight and demurrage, and the Transport Operator shall render full accounts to him immediately after sale."

It was found by the State Commission that it was the petitioner who was more in breach of these two clauses. No notice was given by the petitioner as required under Clause 6 either to the complainants or to the Bank and further no intimation was sent as to how much proceeds have been realised on auction. It was rather found by the State Commission that there was evidence that the goods have been delivered to the consignee.

BOTH the District Forum and the State Commission have found against the petitioner. They have returned a finding that goods had in fact been delivered to the consignee without the consignee getting the documents released from the Bank and making the payment. Petitioner could not have delivered the goods to the consignee in the absence of the documents. Even if we assume for a moment if the goods were not delivered to consignee, since the petitioner was itself in breach of Clauses 6 and 7 of the conditions as contained in the goods receipt it was squarely a case of deficiency in service by the petitioner-common carrier. We found no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These revision petitions are dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.