Shakun Gupta vs Sham Road Lines

IN this appeal preferred by the successful complainant the solitary additional relief sought is the grant of interest on the value of goods entrusted to the respondent. It therefore, suffices to notice the facts with utmost brevity.

THE appellant who is the sole proprietor of M/s. Durga Instruments Corporation, Ambala Cantt. on the ''4th May, 1989, had booked material of the value of Rs. 9,626.65 paise through the respondent M/s Sham Road Lines Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt. for their carriage to different destinations. However, when these goods were not delivered to the addressee by the respondent, a claim was lodged with them and the latter allegedly assured that the same would be settled shortly. It was the complainant -appellants case that the respondent had informed her that the goods had been destroyed in an accidental fire in the godown at Pathankot and the owners of the godown had made a claim against the insurers with regard to the loss. The relief claimed was for the value of goods with interest thereon at 18 per cent. On notice being issued the respondents admitted the factum of the goods having been booked by them. However, it was their stand that these goods were duly despatched by the respondents through M/s. Kullu Simla Goods Transport Company, Chandigarh and further that these goods were expressly booked at the owners risk as per the terms and conditions of the. agreement betwixt them. It was then pointed out that the said goods had reached at the Damtol office of the aforesaid Kullu Simla Goods Transport Company and were destroyed as a result of some mischievous acts of their enemies who set fire to the said office and the godown, which act was beyond the control of the respondents. It was denied that the owner of the said godown had got the claim from the Insurance Company with regard to the said goods. It was reiterated that the complainant had not preferred her claim within the specified period of fifteen days and also that the goods were entirely at the owners risk unless they were expressly insured. It was also pleaded that the claim was barred by time and further that loss had occurred owing to the fire accident which was beyond the control of the respondents and was not covered by the express agreement betwixt the parties.

THE appellants supported their case by the statement of Shri Hari Ram Gupta, the attorney of the appellant and tendered in .evidence the general power of attorney Ext. P.2. The respondents intermittently put in appearance but were ultimately proceeded ex -parte.

THE District Forum on the basis of the unrebutted evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant allowed the complaint. The relief granted in express terms was as under: - ''We therefore, direct the respondent either to return the goods quite intact to the complainant or pay a sum of Rs. 9626.65 to the complainant in lieu thereof''. Mr. Hari Ram Gupta, authorised representative of the appellant has raised a solitary argument. It was his case that the complainant had claimed interest @ 18% on the value of goods but the District Forum has been remiss in not allowing the same.

WE are unable to find much merit in the only plea taken on behalf of the appellant. As stands already noticed, the District Forum has granted the relief in the alternative. Obviously in the case of the return of the goods intact to the complainant no question of the payment of interest could possibly arise. Even otherwise, on the basic pleadings of the parties and the evidence led we find no default on the part of the respondent which would merit the levy of penal interest on them. Indeed, it was their firm case that the express terms of the agreement were that the goods were being carried entirely of the owners risk and they had in due course entrusted them to the transporters for their carriage to the respective destinations. However, these goods were destroyed either due to criminal mischief or by an accidental fire in the godowns of the transporter. Obviously this was beyond the control of the respondents and no blame could be laid at their door on this score. It is elementary in a situation of this kind that the owners of the godown would have to lodge a claim with their insurers which inevitably would take its time for final settlement and subsequent apportionment betwixt the various owners of the goods held in the said godown. There was thus no inordinate delay or procrastination on the part of the respondent. Equally in the evidence of the complainant no evidence of any special damage having been incurred was led. For all these reasons we are unable to find any sure foundation for imposing penal interest on the respondents in the present case.

FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the consumer -appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed. -