RAM TRANSPORT COMPANY vs GOEL TRADERS

THE appellant aggrieved of the order dated 17.1.1996 passed in Case No. 10/1995 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shivpuri (for short the ''District Forum'') has filed this appeal.

FACTS giving rise to this appeal are thus : The respondent No. 1 booked a consignment of 100 bags of mustard for being transported to Manoj Grah Udyog, Gwalior on payment of freight of Rs. 900/- on 18.12.1994. The appellant sent the said goods by truck No. CPG 7731 owned by Mukesh Chourasiya, but the said consignment did not reach at its destination. A first information report was lodged. The respondent No. 1 claimed the amount of Rs. 1,14,750/- inclusive of the freight of Rs. 900/-. After notice, the appellant filed reply and admitted of having booked a consignment and also receipt of Rs. 900/- which is evident from para 1 of the reply. The appellant contended that the goods were transported by truck owned by respondent No. 2, therefore, the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the amount claimed. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence and material on record passed the order directing payment of Rs. 1,14,750/- and Rs. 5000/- as compensation and also interest @ 12% p.a. on the total amount of Rs. 1,19,750/-.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the finding of the District Forum is based on appreciation of evidence and material on record and does not call for any interference. The contention that the appellant was merely a transport agent and has not received any amount nor received the consignment is contrary and inconsistent to the stand taken in the reply filed by the appellant before the District Forum, therefore the appellant cannot escape from the liability.

HOWEVER, we are of the view that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to compensation of Rs. 5000/- as for awarding, the District Forum has not given any reasons. Recently, Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Housing Board v. Prio Ranjan Roy, reported in 1997 (II) MPWN 199 has observed that where the damages are awarded there must be an assessment thereof and the order awarding damages must contain an indication of the basis upon which the amount awarded is arrived at. There should have been some statements in the order under challenge about the relationship between the amount awarded and the default and unjustifiable delay and harassment found to have been caused. In view of the aforesaid decision as there is no indication at all for award of damages of Rs. 5,000/- we are of the view that award of Rs. 5,000/- as damages or compensation cannot be sustained. Therefore, we modify the order of the District Forum and direct that the appellant shall pay the amount of Rs. 1,14,750/- with its interest @ 12% p.a. as awarded by the District Forum from the date of the order i.e. 17.1.1996.

IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.