Far Eastern Carrier vs Standard Literature Associates

FAR Eastern Carriers (hereinafter referred to as the ''Appellant '') has filed this First Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer District Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ''State '' Commission '') which allowed the complaint of M/s. Standard Literature Associates, original complainant before the State Commission and Respondent herein.

IN its complaint before the State Commission, Respondent/Complainant who are the publishers/importers/distributors of Academic and General Books having their sales and distribution network throughout India, had hired the services of Appellant carrier to transport two separate consignments of 17 wooden cases and 6 wooden cases containing 65 sets and 52 sets of books for transportation to Delhi from its Kolkata office on 7.9.1996. After accepting the full freight charges, Respondent/Complainant was assured by Appellant of their safe and prompt delivery at New Delhi. However when the Appellant failed to deliver the consignment and no satisfactory explanation for its non-delivery was forthcoming, a legal notice dated 14.3.1997 was sent to the Appellant calling upon them to deliver the consignment or otherwise settle the claim bills and cost of demurrage in this respect. However, despite this no proper response was received from Appellant. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and negligence and requested that the Appellant be directed to pay Respondent a total sum of Rs. 10,94,000 which included Rs. 5,60,000 being the value of the books, interest and also compensation for damages, mental tension and agony, etc. Appellants on being served, filed written submissions admitting that two consignments of books were entrusted to it for transportation from Kolkata to Delhi but denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part. According to the Appellant due to non-availability of a truck, the Appellant engaged the services of M/s. B. S. Roadlines to transport the consignment through their truck No. DL 1G 2892 and freight charges were paid accordingly to M/s. B.S. Roadlines. Unfortunately, the consignments could not be delivered in Delhi, as the truck met with an accident on 8.9.1996, when its driver lost control of the truck due to poor road conditions and it fell into the Taliya Dam in Bihar. An FIR was also lodged with the Police Station Hazari Bagh, Bihar on 17.9.1996. Respondent was also informed by the Appellant about the accident. However, since neither the driver nor the Appellant were responsible for the accident, Appellant contended that it was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent. It was contended that the claim was also highly exaggerated since the value of the goods has been disclosed by the Respondent as being Rs. 2,80,000 and not Rs. 5,60,000 as now claimed.

THE State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the complaint by observing that whenever parties enter into a contract the service provider undertakes to make up the loss suffered by the consumer in case of non-delivery, wrong delivery, destruction or damage. In terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer protection Act, a consumer is entitled to an amount as compensation as to the actual loss as well as the injury, agony and harassment suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party, as in the instant case. The State Commission also accepted the Respondents contention that the cost of the consignment booked was actually Rs. 5,60,000 by observing as follows: "Since in the instant case the claim of the complainant that the cost of the consignment was Rs. 5,60,000 has neither being disputed nor challenged by the OP, we allow the complaint with the direction to the OP to pay this amount and award Rs. 50,000 as lump sum compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, which shall include the cost of litigation. In all the OP shall pay a sum of Rs. 6,10,000 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. "

BEING aggrieved by the above order, the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent in person made oral submissions. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the State Commission had erred in concluding that the value of the consignment being Rs. 5,60,000 was not challenged or disputed by the Respondent whereas Appellant had filed in evidence before the State Commission the two consignment notes signed by the Respondent clearly indicating that the value of one consignment (17 wooden cases - printed books) was Rs. 2,00,000 and the value of the second consignment (6 wooden cases) was Rs. 80,000,i.e., a total of Rs. 2,80,000. These facts were also clearly stated by the Appellant in its written rejoinder filed before the State Commission. The State Commission unfortunately, did not take cognizance or acknowledge this important documentary evidence in its findings and instead erroneously accepted the Respondents claim of the goods being of a much higher value. Counsel for the Appellant further stated even if the claim based on the consignment notes was found to be admissible, only 2/3rd of the total value of the goods could be claimed as compensation as per the terms and conditions of the contract. Counsel for the Appellant also challenged the compensation of Rs. 50,000 as being not warranted because there was no deficiency in service on its part since the accident was caused due to reasons beyond its control. The above contentions were challenged by the Respondent who reiterated that deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant was writ large since they it failed to adhere to the contract,i.e., to ensure safe and expeditious delivery of the consignments to Delhi. There was also deficiency in service on Appellant ''s part in not responding to Respondent ''s several reminders regarding the fate of the consignments and in entrusting the transportation of the consignments to some other Company without informing the Respondent about the same. The State Commission rightly appreciated these facts including the value of the goods based on the invoice and had redressed Respondent ''s grievances by directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 5,60,000 and also Rs. 50,000 as compensation.

WE have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties as also the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the Respondent had booked two consignments of books with the Appellant carrier company for transportation from Kolkata to Delhi but due to an accident to the truck which fell into a river the consignments were destroyed and, did not reach Delhi. The point in dispute in the instant case essentially pertains to the value of the goods which were damaged and for which Respondent had sought compensation which included Rs. 5,60,000 for the books, which was also granted by the State Commission. This has been challenged by the Appellant as being highly overvalued. In support of their contention the Appellant has brought to our notice the consignment notes signed by the consignee which clearly indicates that the value of the goods to be transported was Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 80,000 respectively totalling to Rs. 2,80,000 and not Rs. 5,60,000. These facts were also reiterated by the Appellant in its written submission before the State Commission. In view of these facts we find force in the Appellant ''s contention that the State Commission erred in not taking cognizance of these important documents which were in evidence before it and erroneously concluding that the Appellant carrier company had not disputed nor challenged the claim of the Respondent that the cost of the consignment was Rs. 5,60,000, when there was clear evidence to the contrary as stated above. On the other hand, the Respondent has not been able to produce any credible explanation or file any evidence to support its contention that the value of the goods as stated in the consignment notes were under-valued. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the finding and order of the State Commission directing the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,60,000 and we, set aside the same. Counsel for the Appellant has contended before us that as per the terms and conditions of the contract it is liable pay only two-third of the value of the consignments and not the total amount of Rs. 2,80,000. However, since there is no evidence that this fine print condition was specifically brought to the notice of the Respondent, we are unable to accept this contention at this stage. We, therefore, direct the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,80,000 to the Respondent being the declared value of the goods which were destroyed in the accident.

WE note that the State Commission has also awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, etc. We are inclined to uphold this part of the State Commission ''s order in view of the fact that there was clearly deficiency in service on Appellant ''s part in not only failing to deliver the consignments but also entrusting the goods to some other carrier without informing the Respondent. The Appellant was also unduly tardy in not replying to Respondent regarding the fate of the goods, which it did only after the receipt of Respondent ''s legal notice. Under these circumstances, compensation of Rs. 50,000 as awarded by the State Commission for the harassment and mental agony caused to Respondent is fair and equitable. To sum up, we modify the order of the State Commission by directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 2,80,000 to the Respondent being the value of the goods lost while transporting them from Kolkata to Delhi as also Rs. 50,000 as compensation.

LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant contends that as per the order of this Commission dated 3.7.2007 it has already deposited Rs. 3,50,000 with this Commission and this amount was also withdrawn by the Respondent as confirmed by him. In view of these facts we direct the Registry to release the sum of Rs. 2,80,000 plus Rs. 50,000,i.e., a total of Rs. 3,30,000 to the Respondent with accrued interest. The remaining amount of Rs. 20,000 be released to the Appellant also, along with accrued interest. This appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. Appeal disposed of.