MANOJ SINGH S/O SH. YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH vs DEEPAK KUMAR SAH & ORS.

The complainant/petitioner entrusted goods worth Rs.1,64,502/- to New Hariom Transport Deodhar for transporting the same to Godda. The goods however, did not reach the destination. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, impleading the transporter, driver as well as the owners of the truck as the opposite party.

The complaint was resisted by Amarnath Dubey, Proprietor of Hariom Transport Deodhar, on the ground that the goods were carried by Sunil Kumar Mehto, opposite party No.3 in the complaint, who was robbed by some unknown persons, who unloaded the goods from the truck and left the truck near Chandan forest. The complaint was also resisted by Deepak Kumar Sah, opposite party No.2 in the complaint who stated that he was neither the transporter of the goods nor the owner of the vehicle. Guddu Sah, who was impleaded as opposite party No.3 in the complaint admitted that he was the owner of the truck but claimed that truck had been hijacked and goods had been looted. Opposite Party No.4 Sunil Mehto, driver of the truck took the plea that when the truck reached near Banheti village, the criminal forcibly stopped it, gave beating to him and forced him to sit in another vehicle. The goods loaded in the truck were looted by those persons and an FIR in this regard was lodged at the concerned police station.

The District Forum vide its order dated 23.09.2013, directed the opposite party No. 2 and 3 in the complaint to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,502/- to the complainant, along with interest, compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, opposite party No. 2 and 3 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.3.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by them. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The District Forum vide its order dated 23.09.2013 had dismissed the complaint against opposite party No. 1 and 2, the transporter and the driver of the vehicle. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the complainant, who thereby accepted the dismissal of the complaint against the above referred two opposite parties i.e. the transporter Amarnath Dueby and driver Sunil Mehto.

As far as the respondents Deepak Kumar Sah and Shyam Sundar Sah are concerned, the only allegation against them is that they are the owners of the vehicle in which the goods were being transported. Admittedly, the goods were entrusted by the complainant to opposite party No.1 in the complaint namely Amarnath Dubey, transporter of New Hariom Transport. The complainant / petitioner never hired their services. Therefore, there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant. Since the goods were entrusted to Amarnath Dubey, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of Deepak Kumar Sah and Shyam Sunder Sah, opposite party No.2 and 3 in the complaint. The deficiency, if any, in rendering services to the complainant could be on the part of the transporter to whom the goods were entrusted.

It appears from the order passed by the State Commission that there was a clause on the booking receipt stipulating that once the goods were loaded on the vehicle, the driver and owner of the vehicle would be responsible. However, since the owners of the vehicle were not a party to the said booking receipt, they are not bound by the aforesaid term and therefore, cannot be held responsible. The same would be the position as far as the driver of the vehicle is concerned. Moreover, since the goods were looted by some criminals, the driver of the vehicle cannot be held liable to compensate the complainant. In any case, the complainant is not the consumer of the driver of the vehicle and therefore, is not entitled to recover any compensation from him through a Consumer Forum.

The complainant having booked the goods on the term that once they were loaded on the vehicle, only the driver and owners of the vehicle will be responsible, he is not entitled to any compensation from the transporter. As far as the owners and driver are concerned, neither the complainant is their consumer nor any deficiency on their part in rendering services, is made out.

It transpired during the course of hearing that the goods in question were not insured. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant was that it was for the transporter to insure the goods. However, admittedly, no premium for insurance of the goods was charged from the complainant nor did the transporter represent to him that the goods had been got insured by him. In any case, considering that the complainant had agreed while entrusting the goods to the transporter, not to hold him responsible once the goods were loaded on the truck, I need not go into the question as to whether the goods ought to have been got insured by the transporter or by the complainant.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.