MEDO CHEM LABORATORY PVT. LTD. vs KANPUR DELHI GOODS CARRIER PVT. LTD.

FACTS in the case are that the complainant entrusted to the opposite party various consignments between 7.12.89 and 11.10.90 for carriage to Faizabad from Delhi. The said consignments were to be delivered to the person presenting the lorry receipts. The arrangement which the complainant had made was that the aforesaid lorry receipts were sent to its bankers in Faizabad. They were to collect the payment of the Bills of the consignments and to hand over the lorry receipts to the person making such payments. The opposite party was to deliver the consignment to such person upon their presenting the lorry receipts obtained by them from the Bank against payment. The Bank were to forward the remittances of the collected amount to the complainant. The Bankers returned the lorry receipts to the complainant with the remarks that the payments were not forthcoming. The complainant asked the opposite party to re-book the consignments back to Delhi. That, however, was not done. The fact was that delivery of some the consignments had already been made by the respondent to the ultimate consignee of the goods. Apparently they had done so without insisting on the presentation of the lorry receipts. The version of the respondent is that the consignee had already made part payment amounting to Rs. 44,000/- to the complainant towards the costs of the goods and that 25 cases of goods were still available for delivery.

WE have gone into the facts of the case and have also heard Counsel for the parties. The short question for consideration is whether it was open to the opposite party to have made delivery of the consignments to the third party without insisting on presentation of lorry receipts. The complainant in the various submissions made to the Commission-affidavit, complaint, rejoinder etc. have made unequivocal assertion that it is obligatory for a goods carrier Company to deliver goods to a party only against documents (Lorry Receipts) obtained by the party after payment to the Bank and presentation thereof to opposite party. There is no categorical rebuttal of this assertion by opposite party in its reply documents. It is an accepted practice in the transport trade that the carrier Company, unless otherwise specifically so instructed and authorised, has to give delivery of goods only on production of documents obtained by the party from the Bank upon deposit of required payment. Facts in the case show that there was no authorisation by the complainant in favour of opposite party in this regard and that opposite party on its own chose to deliver the consignments to the third party without production of documents got cleared from the Bank. This in our view, amounts, to deficiency in service. It is of no help to the opposite party that the party had some receipts of payments made to the complainant. Opposite party was not expected to act upon such representation. It was bound by the procedure to insist on production of documents (lorry receipt) got cleared from the Bank. It clearly failed to do so and is liable for the consequences. Even so, upon opposite party''s representation, copies of ledger maintained by the complainant in respect of the accounts of the party in question were called before the Commission and copies furnished. Opposite party was not able to establish that there were any payments made to the complainant with regard to the goods in question. On the other hand the complainant was able to show that the drafts and cheques referred to by opposite party alleged to have been paid by the party to the complainant were in payment of other consignments and goods which had no relation with the present consignments. Further again upon opposite party''s submission we asked the complainant to inspect the 25 odd cases of goods that were claimed by opposite party as still lying with them. Complainant inspected the said goods and in its affidavit has made a categorical statement though contested by the opposite party that out of a total of 127 cases entrusted for carriage to the opposite party there were only 12 lying in the respondents godown. These contained some of the goods which were never sent or manufactured by it. On a perusal of the submissions of the two sides we are led to believe that a major portion of the consignment already stands disposed of and what is remaining is not usable.

In conclusion we have no hesitation in holding that there was an utter failure on the part of opposite party in discharge of services undertaken. They are, therefore, liable to compensate the complainant in the following terms :- (i) Cost of goods Rs. 95,805.00, (ii) Interest @ 18% on the value of each of the eight consignments calculated separately giving allowance of 3 months in each case from the date of their entrustment for delivery. This shall be deemed to include the Bank charges and Sales-tax. (iii) Rs. 2000/- towards costs.

THE decretal amount shall be paid within six weeks of the receipt of this order failing which action under Section 27 of the C.P. Act will be initiated against them. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties. Complaint allowed with costs.