COMMERCE HOUSE vs SAVANI TRANSPORT LIMITED

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 26.5.1999 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as the ''District Forum'' for short) in Case No. 366/1998 whereby the complaint of the complainant regarding recovery of the price, of the goods transported by the opposite parties/respondents was dismissed.

RELEVANT undisputed facts are : that two consignments of Rexine coated cloth were booked on 14.3.1997 and 25.3.1997 for being delivered at Allahabad and another consignment was also booked on 29.1.1997 to be delivered at Bangalore. None of the aforementioned consignments was however delivered. It is also not in dispute that the two consignments to be delivered at Allahabad could not be so delivered as they were seized by the Sales Tax authorities at Jhansi Check-post due to want of Form-31 required under the Sales Tax Act and under Rule 26(6) of the Sales Tax Rules. The consignment booked on 29.1.1997 to be delivered at Bangalore, however, reached inordinately late there and the consignee in whose favour the consignment was booked namely M/s. Jansons Motor Accessories of Bangalore, cancelled the order and the consignment as above has now been brought back by the respondents to Raipur on instructions from the appellant/consignor. The complainant alleged that the non-delivery of the consignments has resulted in loss to him. He claimed total compensation of Rs. 42,960/- with interest, etc. thereon. The complaint as above was resisted by the respondents/transporters. According to them, the consignment was seized as the appellant had not furnished Form No. 31 as required under the Sales-tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was also averred that the consignments to be delivered at Bangalore was brought back by him but the appellant has not taken delivery thereof despite intimation given to him.

Learned District Forum held that since the goods booked for Allahabad were seized by the Sales-tax Authority due to want of legal formality of filling up Form No. 31, the respondents/transporters could not be held liable for non-delivery thereof. It was also held that since the goods booked for Bangalore were in a small quantity and did not constitute full truck load, some delay was likely to be caused in transportation of the same, Therefore, the respondents/transporters were not liable for the delay in carrying the said consignment to Bangalore. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that the complainant relied upon the representations of the respondents/transporters that Form No. 31 was not required for transporting the goods to Allahabad in U.P. and the said Form was not filled up and furnished by him. Hence the appellant cannot be held liable for the seizure of his goods by the Sales-tax Authorities. It was also contended that so far as the consignment booked for Bangalore is concerned, though the same was booked on 29.1.1997 but could not reach the destination, hence the order thereof was cancelled by consignee resulting in loss to the appellant. It was, therefore, contended that the appellant was entitled to get the price of the consigned goods from the respondents/transporters. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, supported the impugned order. It was contended that it was the obligation of the appellant conginor/the owner of the goods to fill up Form No. 31. However, he failed in his duty in doing so, which resulted in the seizure of the said goods at Jhansi Check-post by the U.P. Sales Tax Authorities. The transporters/respondents cannot be held liable for non-delivery of goods at Allahabad in the foregoing circumstances. It was also contended that the learned District Forum has rightly observed that the goods booked for Bangalore being in small quantity, some delay was likely to be caused in its reaching the destination at Bangalore and the respondents cannot be held liable for the same.

SO far as the goods booked for Allahabad on 14.3.1997 and 25.3.1997 are concerned, it is clear that Form No. 31 was required to be filled up under Sales Tax Act and Rules. It was however not furnished by the appellant. He was the owner of the goods and as such was under obligation to furnish the said Form. He has failed to do so. In the circumstances, he cannot take shelter of the excuse that in the Lorry Receipt issued by the respondents, it was mentioned that Form No. 31 was not required. The respondent''s learned Counsel has urged that the endorsement, as above, was made on the representation by the appellant himself. While, appellant''s learned Counsel controverted the above position, be that as it may, since the liability of filling up the said Form was that of the owner of the goods under the law, the appellant cannot take shelter of the representation as above by the respondents, even if it was so made. The Rules and the law should have been followed by the appellant. In any case, the seizure of the goods by the Sales Tax Authorities in U.P. whether the same was lawful or otherwise was not at the behest of the respondents/transporters. They, therefore, cannot be held liable for the action as above by the Sales Tax Authority. Further in view of the seizure as above, they were not in a position to deliver the goods at Allahabad. In the foregoing circumstances, as non-delivery at Allahabad occurred on account of action by the law enforcing authorities, that absolves the respondents/transporters from liability on account of non-delivery of goods. There is no mal-feasance or mis-feasance on their part in that regard. Hence, the appellant cannot claim compensation for non-delivery of goods booked by it to Allahabad. The finding of the learned District Forum in that regard is, therefore, justified and calls for non-interference. It is clear that the appellant would be free to seek recourse to legal remedy for release of his articles from the Sales Tax Authorities, in case he is so advised. So far as the consignment booked for Bangalore is concerned, it is rather unfortunate that though the complainant in his complaint mentioned that the consignment reached Bangalore very late, but has not specified as to till what time it did not reach there. However, during arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the consignee M/s. Janson Motor Accessories, Bangalore by its letter dated 30.5.1997 intimated the appellant that the consignment did not reach them till then and, therefore, they are returning the lorry receipt.

IT is, therefore, clear that the consignment for Bangalore booked on 29.1.1997 as would be clear from the copy of the Lorry Receipt filed in the record of the District Forum, did not reach Bangalore till 30.5.1997. Thus, there was undue delay of more than four months till which consignment did not reach Bangalore. Even if the consignment booked for Bangalore did not constitute full truck load and it was in smaller quantity, but it would not mean that it should have been delivered for a long period of more than four months. IT is also clear that the delay in transportation of the said consignment has resulted in refusal to take delivery by the consignee and in cancellation of the order by him, as has been stated in the letter of the consignee dated 31.5.1997 as noticed above. The consignment appears to have been brought back to Raipur by the respondents and it is reportedly still in their custody. The appellant''s learned Counsel states that due to the lapse of a long period of more than six years, the articles of the consignment must have been rendered worthless.

IN the circumstances, it is clear that the respondent''s carriers were at fault in not delivering goods at Bangalore within reasonable time. The observation and finding of the learned District Forum that since the lot booked for Bangalore consisted of a small quantity, it could not be delivered in time, appears to be erroneous. IN the foregoing circumstances, the appellant is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 16,265/-, the value of consignment sent to Bangalore. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. So far as the value of consignment booked for Bangalore is concerned, it is directed that the respondent shall pay to the appellant Rs. 16,265/- (Rupees sixteen thousand two hundred sixty-five only) the value of the said consignment with interest @ 9% per annum thereon, from the date of complaint till date of payment.

In view of the partial success of the parties, the costs of this appeal shall be borne by them. Appeal partly allowed.