GOA ACRYLICS vs SENIOR ROADLINES

THIS appeal is against the order of the District Forum dated 31.3.92 passed in complaint No. 32 of 1990. The complainant alleged in his complaint before the District Forum that there was deficiency in the service of the transporter M/s. Senior Road Lines while delivering the goods sent to Bombay for delivery. According to the complainant he has booked three consignments for Rs. 9027/-, out of them one consignment meant for M/s. Ganesh Plastic was not delivered. The complainant further claimed that the directions be given to the opposite party to deliver the said consignment or the cost of Rs. 18,177.50 as the value of the said goods with interest to the complainant. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that since the complainant did not make the payment for the consignment for the expenses of octroi duty and freight charges, the Opposite party had a lien on the undelivered goods.

WE have heard Shri S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri. P.P. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent. It has been contended on behalf of (he Appellant by Shri Usgaonkar that the opposite party was deficient in its service as one consignment meant for M/s. Ganesh Plastic was not delivered. This is an admitted fact, therefore, the question arises for our determination is, whether it amounts to deficiency in the service of the carrier. The District Forum dismissed the complaint relying on the condition that the opposite party-has a lien over the goods if not delivered. The opposite party also heavily relied on condition No. 20 on a printed form of the Senior Road Lines filed in the same, we find that it is a blank form bearing No. 23501 which contains a condition overleaf that octroi charges should be paid to the transporter either by the consignee or the consignor only. But condition No. 20 is not found printed on the original booking form issued to the complainant. It is therefore very clear that the condition No. 20 is not applicable to the transaction in question. It is further found that the District Forum was wrong in relying on condition No. 20 which is not printed on the consignor''s copy of the date of transaction. In view of the admitted fact by the opposite party that one consignment was not delivered to M/s. Ganesh Plastics it is a deficiency in the service of the opposite party. It is for the transporter not to accept the goods if his transport charges and the incidental charges for payment of octroi is not paid to him. But if the transporter accepts to render the service to transport the goods to the destination and if he fails to do it under the pretext of non payment of freight charges and the charges of the octroi it will amount to deficiency in the service. If the consignee of the consignor does not pay to the transporter his charges for payment of octroi under stipulation then he has remedy to approach the Civil Court for recovery of his payment by filing a Civil Suit. In any case it will amount to deficiency if the consignment is not delivered by the transporter once he has been entrusted the goods and the transporter undertake to render the service to the consumer. Thus we find that the impugned order is contrary to facts and law, and required to be set aside. Hence we pass the following order: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is hereby ordered that the-complainant is entitled to the compensation if he proves loss suffered by him as a result of non delivering of the goods. In our appellate powers it is not possible for us to arrive at the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant and hence the complaint is sent back to the District Forum to decide the quantum of compensation for payment to the complainant after hearing both the parties. Appeal allowed.