LAXMI ENTERPRISE vs PANKAJ TRANSPORT CO.

THE appellant is the Original complainant to whom a parcel was sent by William Industries, Bombay which contained hosiery goods. Under the Transport Receipt the parcel was to be delivered to the complainant. It appears from the judgment of the District Forum that the Opposite Party was under obligation to deliver the parcel in good condition and without damages. THE facts as stated in the judgment are that while the truck was going from Bombay to Kachchh, met with an accident on road and some of the goods have been stolen by miscreants while it was parked on the road, which is alleged to be on account of the negligence of the respondent (Original Opponents).

THE complainant presented the receipt on 2.3.90 at Bhuj for delivery in the office of the Opponents and at that time though the parcel was found to be broken, open delivery was taken and when compared with the bill, the goods were found less. THE complainant has also produced the shortage certificate issued by the Opponents and according to the certificate, the complainant had received goods worth Rs. 1,286/- less. Since the payment of this amount was not made by the Opponents, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum. THE District Forum had dismissed the present complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer. THE original sender William Industries was the owner and, therefore, only William Industries can file a complaint. We find that the District Forum has committed an error both on law and facts in arriving at this conclusion. Under the definition of "consumer", as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, not only the original contracting party but also the beneficiary of the contracting parties are considered to be consumer within the meaning of that Section. Admittedly, the consignee of the consignment is the complainant and recognising his little, the Opposite Party has delivered the parcel and has also issued a certificate.

Again, the Transport receipt is a document of title and when this consignment was assigned to the purchaser, the right in goods is transferred to the purchaser who has also a right to file a suit or complaint. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the complainant is not the consignee or assignee of the Transport Receipt. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the complainant is a consumer and is entitled to bring this complaint and the Opposite Party is liable to pay damages sustained by the complainant. According to the certificate issued by the Opposite Party, the complainant has received the goods worth Rs. 1,312/- less and, therefore, he is entitled to that amount with interest and cost.

ACCORDING to our opinion, it is not necessary to remand the matter since there is no dispute regarding short delivery of the goods of the aforesaid value and the amount being very small we decide it on merits. We, therefore, direct that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,312/- with running interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of delivery i.e. 2.3.90 till the full payment is made. The opponents shall also pay the cost. ORDER Appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The opponents shall pay Rs. 1,312/- with 18% p.a. from 3.2.90 till the full payment is made and shall also pay the cost of both the Courts which is quantified at Rs. 500/-. The payment shall be made within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Appeal allowed.