PRAKASH TRANSPORT vs YADAV CRAFTS

THIS appeal is by the common carrier who was opposite party before the State Commission. Complaint of the respondent-complainant was allowed by the State Commission and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 1,43,000 and Rs. 1.10.600 with interest both @ 15% per annum, on first amount from 1.8.1992 and on the second amount from 3.8.1992. These two different dates refer to the booking of consignments by the complainant which consignments it is alleged could not be delivered.

COMPLAINANT booked three consignments with the appellant for delivery to consignee based in Kathmandu in Nepal, a foreign country. The invoice value of the third consignment was Rs. 2.20.898.75 and was despatched on 11.8.1992. It is alleged that regarding this third consignment complainant accepted a sum of Rs. 1,60,558 from the ultimate consignee based in Kathmandu. The impugned judgment of the State Commission is brief. It merely proceeds on the basis that since the consignments could not be delivered, appellant as a common carrier could be liable. We do not think the question was as simple as State Commission thought it. Appellant which is a common carrier operates in India. Goods were to be delivered at Kathmandu to M/s. Khushboo Fashion International Ltd. Goods receipts and other documents were to be negotiated through the Rashtriya Banijya Bank. Kathmandu. The goods were carried by the appellant upto India-Nepal border thereafter another transport company M/s. Prakash Transport (Nepal) (P) Ltd. where after paying the custom duty and taxes, received the goods and took them to Kathmandu. M/s. Khushboo Fashion Industries did not take delivery of the goods. Consequently documents were returned to the Bank.

It is the contention of the appellant that as regards third consignment, goods were directly delivered to the consignee and the amount as aforesaid was received by the complainant. As regards remaining consignments complainant required appellant to rebook the same for home to India. On the failure of the appellant to do so the complaint was filed.

ADMITTEDLY, there is no agreement under which appellant was bound to rebook the goods. It is stated that Prakash Transport (Nepal) (P) Ltd. Kathmandu is altogether separate company registered in the Nepal itself and it had no relation with the appellant. It is contended by the complainant that though there was no terms and conditions on the goods receipt that appellant was required to rebook the consignment back home but is custom and usage of the transport business and if the consignee fails to take delivery of the goods, the transport company can bring back the goods at the cost of the consignor to the place from where it was booked. We are unable to find any custom and usage. There is no evidence on record to justify such a stand. Then the question arises as to what is to be done to the goods which are lying in a foreign country. There are bound to be certain formalities of custom before the goods can pass through the Nepal border. Complainant has failed to show as to how appellant could have brought the goods of its own from Kathmandu passing the custom barrier at the India-Nepal border. Appellant expressed its inability to rebook the goods as desired by the complainant. In our view it was for the complainant to take steps for having the goods brought from Nepal as per the custom formalities applicable in Nepal. The burden of this could not be imposed on the appellant and we do not think there is anything to allege that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, a common carrier.

ACCORDINGLY this appeal is allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside. Appellant will be entitled to cost which we assess at Rs. 2,500. Appeal allowed.