M.P. ROADLINES (Regd.) vs MANGAT RAM

BRIEF facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant firm is manufacturer of handloom blankets, mufflers and shawls etc. The complainant firm sent five consignments worth Rs. 1,73,700/- to M/s. Babita Saree Centre, Bhillai, Pardesi Chowk, Ram Nagar Post Office, Supalla District, Durg (M.P.). M/s. Babita Saree Centre had asked the complainant to send the goods through the respondent Company and documents through the UCO Bank and State Bank of India, Supalla, Bhillai. The consignments were handed over to respondent No. 1-M/s. M.P. Roadlines (Regd.) (who is appellant in this appeal) (hereinafter called the opposite party), for transportation of the goods. The complainant was the consignor as well as the consignee of the goods. The value of the goods was disclosed in the G.Rs. The complainant had sent the documents of G.Rs., Hundis and Bills after endorsement in favour of UCO Bank in respect of G.R. No. 165973 and to the State Bank of India in respect of the remaining four consignments. M/s. Babita Saree Centre was to get the documents retired from the Banks after making the payment of the goods and then the goods were to be presented in the branch office of opposite party (appellant) for delivery and then the delivery was to be made. The documents were returned by the Bank with the remarks that the payments were not forthcoming; as such the complainant had requested the opposite party (appellant) for rebooking the consignments of goods. The opposite party was told that in case the goods were delivered then the payment should be made with interest. The complainant made many requests to the opposite party to rebook the goods; but the opposite party had not done so. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant had also written many letters to the opposite party with this regard. On enquiry it was found that the opposite party had delivered the goods without G.Rs. and in this way the opposite party caused wrongful loss to the complainant. The opposite party had admitted the delivery of the goods without G.Rs. vide letter dated 13.12.1996. A draft for payment of Rs. 20,000/- received from M/s. Babita Saree Centre was also sent. In addition, the complainant received a draft of Rs. 7,000/- drawn on UCO Bank. The rest of the amount has not been paid. According to the complainant a total sum of Rs. 32,000/- has been received so far and an amount of Rs. 1,41,700/- was still recoverable from the opposite party for his negligence. The opposite party having acted illegally, the liability of the opposite party was there to make the payment. It is then prayed in the complaint that the opposite party be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,41,700/- with interest @ 24% and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

THE opposite parties in their written statement had taken preliminary objection that the complainant was not the consumer. THE dispute was of civil nature and the complainant should have approached the Civil Court. It was then stated in the reply that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party. THE complaint was bad for Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum) has no territorial jurisdiction. Payment of Rs. 32,000/- was admitted. According to the opposite party the goods were duly transported after the booking and the consignee was requested to take the delivery of the consignments bearing Nos. 166528, 166553 and 166530, but the consignee took the delivery of other two consignments bearing G.R. Nos. 166771 and 166531. According to the opposite party, it was not stipulated that the delivery was to be made after presentation of the documents. Rather the opposite party was instructed to collect the amount offered by the consignee. THE other three consignments were rebooked as per instructions of the complainant and the goods were brought to Ludhiana on which even the octroi was paid and were delivered back to the complainant. As such no amount was recoverable from the opposite party. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and going through the documents on the record, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,41,700/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of booking of the last G.R. i.e., 14.11.1995 till the date of payment. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

Hence this appeal.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the respondent/complainant and going through the record and the order of the District Forum, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The booking of the goods is admitted by the opposite party. It is also admitted that the delivery was to be made against the receipt of the payment of the amount of goods. The documents were not retired from the Bank according to the opposite party. The liability of the opposite party is established on record since according to the opposite party the delivery was to be made after receipt of payment. The plea of the opposite party is that out of five consignments three consignments were rebooked and delivered back to the complainant. Opposite party has placed on file three G.Rs. through which the goods were allegedly sent by the opposite party to Ludhiana. Even some receipts regarding payment of octroi have also been placed on the file. After going through the evidence on file the District Forum found that G.Rs. produced by the complainant were forged documents. The complainant in rebuttal to the G.Rs. produced by the opposite party placed on file certain documents from which it was indicated that the opposite party had taken a false plea of delivery of goods to the complainant. The complainant had produced an additional affidavit in which it is stated that G.Rs. Exs. C-32 and C-33 purported to be issued by the opposite party and were sent by the opposite party to the complainant. G.R. No. 126300 has been exhibited as Ex. C-32 and G.R. No. 126399 has been exhibited as Ex. C-33. The original G.Rs. which are issued by the opposite party at the time of booking the goods were also placed on the file. The G.Rs. produced by the opposite party through which the goods were sent and were redelivered to the complainant are Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5. G.R. Ex. R-5 bears No. 126300, which shows that it bears the same number which G.R. Ex. C-32 has got. The telephone numbers given in the G.R. Ex. R-3 are different than the number given on G.R. Ex. C-32. It has come in the affidavit of the complainant that no delivery has been given to him. The opposite party also did not produce any receipt showing that the delivery was taken by the complainant. It is in the affidavit of the complainant that the opposite party sent two G.Rs. of the driver copy and the same are in his possession in original and when the complainant went to the office of the opposite party to get delivery as per G.R., it was found that the goods did not belong to the complainant firm and as such no delivery was taken. In these circumstances, taking of delivery has clearly been denied by the complainant. The opposite party did not produce three other G.Rs., which do not tally with the G.Rs. produced by the complainant. The District Forum was right in holding that the opposite party had tried to forge the evidence. The evidence produced by the opposite party did not go to prove that the delivery of the goods had been taken back by the complainant. It is admitted that three consignments were not delivered to the consignee. The liability of the complainant in respect to two other consignments, which were given without collection of money is also there. The total value of the goods was Rs. 1,73,700/- and out of which Rs. 32,000/- having been received by the complainant, the liability of the opposite party was to the extent of Rs. 1,41,700/-.

IN these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.