DHTC (INDIA) Ltd., New Delhi vs Jayanthilal And Co

THIS is a revision petition filed by M/s DHTC (RP) India Ltd. against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in appeal No. 449/2006. The respondent, M/s. Jayanthilal & Co., was the original complainant in the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum, Nilgiri district.

THE impugned order is a common order in three appeals against a common order of the District Forum in three complaints, between the present parties. THE case before the District Forum was that the present respondent/complainant had transported a consignment of tea, through transporter present petitioner/OP, to the consignee, M/s Nimesh Enterprises of Ahemdabad. THE latter was to pay the State Bank of Travancore at Ahemdabad and get the documents. THEse were to be handed over by the consignee to the transport agency, along with lorry receipts and transportation charge, at the time of delivery of goods. The case of the revision petitioner before the District Forum was that the consignee did not take the delivery of goods, therefore, no complaint could lie against him. The bank returned the documents to complainant and debited Rs.48075 to their account. The tea stocks admittedly remained with the transporter and were not returned to the consignor. Understandably, therefore, the District Forum decided that the present revision petitioner should pay to the complainant Rs. 48075, with 18% interest from 31.3.1995 and also Rs.5000 as damages with Rs.1000 towards cost. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, agreed with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

We have perused the records/written arguments filed by petitioner and heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, who has challenged the order of the State Commission on the following grounds: 1. the complaint before the District Forum was filed before notice to the carrier, contemplated by Section 10 Carriers Act, 2. the notice to the carrier itself was issued after the period of two years, permissible under the Consumer Protection Act for filing a complaint and, 3. the consignee did not take delivery of goods hence no complaint could lie.

IN so far as the first limb of argument advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we find that Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 is not attracted to the present case. Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 reads as under: "10. Notice of loss or injury to be given within six months. - No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of, or injury to goods (including container, pallets or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods) entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before the institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Section 10 comes into play when there is loss or injury to the consignment. IN the case before us, it is alleged by the petitioner that the delivery of the goods has not been taken by the consignee. Therefore, Section 10 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case."

The next argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that notice was given to the petitioner after the period of 2 years had elapsed and the complaint was not maintainable. In this respect, the case of the petitioner is that consignee had refused to take the delivery of the consignment and the consignment was re-booked/returned to Coonoor to consignor on 9.2.1995. However, the Respondent did not take delivery by payment of two way freight charges and damages on account of which, the petitioner re-booked the consignment to New Delhi on 13.5.1995 and the goods are still lying in the stock. Even though, the consignment was booked on 12.8.94 and the legal notice was issued on 14.9.96, yet, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the complaint was barred by limitation inasmuch as the petitioner had re-booked/returned the consignment to the consignor on 9.2.95. The consignment being 40 bags of tea, which was perishable article with the passing of time, the petitioner was required to return the consignment in case the consignee had not received the consignment, immediately after refusal by the consignee, but delay on the part of the petitioner had resulted in the consignment being spoiled due to lapse of time. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the second submission as also the third submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner.

MOREOVER, the case of the respondent is that though request was made to return the consignment to Coonoor, yet, the OP had delivered the consignment without getting lorry receipt and other documents. The Bank at Coonoor returned the lorry receipt and the connected documents to the respondent and deducted a sum of Rs.48,075/- representing the value of the consignment, DD interest and incidental charges in the account of the complainant as per debit slip dated 31.3.95. The District Forum on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that except for Exb.B-1, no other document was filed by the OP to prove its case. The District Forum accepted the version put up by the Respondent/complainant and rejected the case of the OP. In our opinion, the findings arrived at by the District Forum are well founded and based upon the material on record and the same were rightly not interfered with by the State Commission. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders of the fora below. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.