GREEN TRANSPORT CORP vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd

SINCE the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant, named above, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard together on the question of admission.

BOTH the above mentioned appeals are directed against a common order dated 13.9.1999, passed by District Forum No. I (District North) in Complaint Case No. 514/97 - entitled The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Green Transport Corporation, and Case No. 805/97also entitled The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Green Transport Corporation. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned two appeals briefly stated are that the respondent/complainant No. 2 in both the cases had booked two separate consignments of oil with the appellant for transportation from Noida to Bhiwandi (Bombay). The consignments, so booked by respondent/complainant No. 2, were duly insured with the respondent/ complainant No. 1. As per the case of the respondent/complainant No. 2 before the District Forum, the consignments in question were not only delivered after a lot of delay but were also damaged due to carelessness and negligence of the appellant, resulting short supply of goods. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant had also issued a ''shortage certificate'' in both the cases. The claim for short supply in both the cases filed by respondent/complainant No. 2 with the appellant was not entertained. As the consignments were insured with the respondent/complainant No. 1, the respondent/ complainant No. 1 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd.) in both the cases settled the claim of respondent/complainant No. 2 and respondent/complainant No. 2 executed a subrogation-cum-assignment deed in favour of respondent/complainant No. 1. Since the appellant did not settle the claim of the respondents, the respondents filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum praying that the appellant be directed to pay the claims of complainant No. 1 in both the cases alongwith interest and compensation.

The appellant contested the claim of the respondents/complainants in the District Forum and filed a written version/reply taking certain preliminary objection therein with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. On merits it was stated that the joints of the drums in question were not properly sealed and, therefore, the appellant was not responsible for the shortage. It was stated in the written version by the appellant in both the cases that the complaints, filed by the complainants/respondents, were devoid of substance and deserved to be dismissed.

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the respondents/ complainants were entitled to relief and, accordingly, directed the appellant to pay to respondent/complainant No. 1 in Complaint Case No. 514/97 a sum of Rs. 38,594/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the payment was made by respondent/complainant No. 1 to complainant No. 2 i.e. from 14.5.1997 till realisation. An amount of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as costs of litigation to the complainants, to be paid by the appellant. In Case No. 805/97, the learned District Forum directed the appellant to pay to respondent/complainant No. 1 a sum of Rs. 15,839/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from 9.7.1997 till realisation. THE appellant was also directed to pay costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,000/-. It was also directed by the District Forum that the above order of the District Forum was to be complied with, within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which action under Section 27 of the Act was to be taken for ensuring compliance. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the above mentioned two appeals.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the above mentioned appeals and have also carefully gone through the documents/ material on record. On a perusal of the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, it is apparent that the learned District Forum has considered and dealt with at length all the contentions raised by the appellant before the District Forum including the preliminary objections, taken by the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the complaints. In our opinion, the above said findings of the learned District Forum suffer from no infirmity. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the respondent/complainant No. 2 in both the cases had booked consignments of oil with the appellant for transportation to Bhiwandi (Bombay). It is also not in dispute that the consignments in question were delivered not only after a lot of delay but also in a damage condition, resulting in short supply of goods. In Case No. 514/97 the short supply was to the extent of 123 kg., valuing Rs. 46,125/- whereas in Case No. 805/97 the same was to the extent of 26 kg. valuing Rs. 14,842/-. It is also not in dispute that the consignments in question were duly insured with respondent/ complainant No. 1 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd.) and the claim of respondent/complainant No. 2 has already been settled by respondent/ complainant No. 1 after paying a sum of Rs. 38,594/- in Case No. 514/97 and a sum of Rs. 15,839/- in Case No. 805/97. It is also not in dispute that respondent/ complainant No. 2 had executed a subrogation- cum-assignment deed in favour of respondent/ complainant No. 1 in both the cases. As per settled law, culled out from various decisions, the Foras, constituted under the Act are more concerned with equity than with technical tortures. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order of the learned District Forum, being impugned in the present proceedings, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. For the above reasons, the above mentioned two appeals, filed by the appellant, deserve to be dismissed in limine. Accordingly, the same are dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.