R M Industries vs HARI SINGH TOMAR

SHRI Hari Singh Tomar, the petitioner, who is a farmer, purchased 30 PCC poles (made of cement) from R. M. Industries/OP situated in Agra on 26.6.2008 for a sum of Rs.46,800/ -. He was informed that Rs.8000/ - would be taken as transport ch arges, for the delivery of said poles from the factory of the respondent/opposite party. The respondent had deposited Rs.3,000/ - in advance and residue agreed amount was to be paid to the driver of the vehicle at the time of delivery of the poles. The complainant was provided duplicate bill and he was informed that he would get the main original bill, which would be sent alongwith the poles within seven days. The complaint did not receive the poles. On inquiry, it transpired that the vehicle carrying the poles, met with an accident on the way, due to which 15 poles were broken and the complainant would get another 15 poles.

THE complainant/petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum and demanded Rs.46,800/ -, the total value of the poles. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal by awarding half of the amount in the sum of Rs.23,400/ - towards the costs of 15 PCC alongwith interest @9% per annum.

THE main question which falls for consideration is as to who had engaged the transport for the delivery of the poles. The case of the complainant is that the transport vehicle was arranged by the OP. It must be borne in mind that the goods were to be sent from Agro to Maroni. There is lot of distance between the two. The OP has raised an objection that Maroni Court had no jurisdiction to try this case because the cause of action had arisen only in Agra Court jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, it is the complainant and nobody else, who is to carry the ball in proving that the tractor carrying the poles was engaged by the OP. Our attention was invited towards the statement of Shri Neeraj Kumar son of Shri Ram Prakash, who is the owner of the transport vehicle. He stated that he was bringing the poles belonging to Shri Hari Singh Tomar, which he had purchased from R. M. Industries. There is no inkling who was to pay the transport amount. There is nothing on record to show that the amount of transport was to be paid by the OP. A seller can accommodate to some extent only. Why should he pay the transport amount running into Rs.8000/ -. It also appears that 30 poles were given at the rate of Rs.1500/ - per pole because the invoice goes to show that rest of the amount is the excise duty. The complainant claims Rupees 46,800/ - without paying the residue cartage of Rs. 5,000/ -. The cat is out of the bag. He should have demanded Rs.49,800/ - . Receipt of Rs.3,000/ - did not see the light of the day. If the amount was to be paid by the complainant alone, why he is shifting the liability to the O.P. The State Commission did not give any reason and the order passed by the District Forum appears to be without any flaw. In view of this discussion, the revision petition is lame of strength and it is dismissed accordingly.