RAJU vs SAVANI TRANSPORT LIMITED

APPELLANT Mr. Raju was one of the two opposite parties before the State Commission, where the respondent Savani Transport Limited had filed a complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the 2 opposite parties mentioned in the complaint before the State Commission.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Ashok Leyland, with a view to transport certain goods from Hosur to Jabalpur, got in touch with the respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant entered into an agreement with the appellant who, in turn, allegedly hired the truck belonging to one Mr. Samiulaah. This truck met with an accident in Hyderabad and delivery of the goods was not made. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed by the complainant before the State Commission, praying for recovery of Rs. 9,20,250. Upon issue of notice, the appellant before us alone, filed his reply; the second OP neither appeared nor filed any reply. Based on material on record and after hearing the parties, the complaint was allowed and the appellant along with second respondent Mr. Samiulaah were directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,20,250 along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 7,00,000 from 21.12.1999 till date of payment. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length. His main line of argument as also the main plea taken in the Memorandum of Appeal relates to that appellant is only a transport broker, is not a transporter and the documents on which State Commission relied, have been misread, leading to a wrong conclusion by the State Commission.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the material on record we find that undisputed facts of the case are that Annexure A-3 is a document issued by the appellant, which reads as follows: "DIVYA ROADLINES Public Carriers and Transport Contractors No. 4, Dhondusa Choultry Complex, 3rd Cross Kalasipalyam New Extn., Bangalore 560002. Loading Slip Dated 24.6.98 To Savani Transport Limited From Hosur to Jabalpur Lorry No. KA-01/7256 Rate 10,500, Advance 8,100/- Thanking you, Yours faithfully For Divya Roadlines"

AFTER reading this document, one is left in no doubt whatsoever that the appellant is a ''public carrier'' and a ''transport contractor'' and in our view, the State Commission has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant that he is only a broker. In any case, if we see Annexure A-2, which is the Goods Haulage Contract, there is no mention of the complainant at all. This has been entered into by the appellant and the second respondent Mr. Samiulaah to which the appellant is not a party. The only document on record which would clarify the position as a contract between the party is signed by ''Divya Roadlines'' and the complainant, which has already been reproduced earlier. The appellant cannot escape his liability for anything done behind the back of the complainant. AFTER going through the material, we are left in no doubt that it was the appellant who undertook to transport the goods received from Savani Transport Ltd. from Hosur to Jabalpur for which it got advance of Rs. 8,100; after that how he gets it transported either from his own truck or truck hired from some one else, is of no concern to the complainant. Having received the goods from the Savani Transport Limited and having received the consideration, it was for the appellant to ensure its safe delivery. Failure to do so, is clear case of deficiency on the part of the appellant, along with the actual transporter in this case. It cannot be disputed that the respondent/complainant hired the services of Divya Roadlines for a consideration and respondent/ complainant was entitled to have his goods delivered safely at the destination. They will be held squarely responsible for failure to do so. The order passed by the State Commission is as per settled law of this Commission and does not call for any interference.

THIS appeal is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.