SHANMUGHAM TRANSPORT vs VELAYUTHA RAJA

ON the facts and in the circumstances of the case, better it is that both these appeals are disposed of by a common order. Though the complainants are different and distinct, yet, the opposite parties are one and the same in these actions.

CERTAIN consignments, it is said, were sent by the respective complainants of a specified value through the opposite party carrier to consignees at different places. The nature of the claims and contentions put forward by the respective parties in these actions are one and the same though the claim made may vary. In both these actions, the opposite parties are the appellants while the respective complainant is the respondent in each of these actions.

In the former action, the complainant, it is said, sent certain consignments through the carrier to the consignee and the value of the consignment so sent is to the tune of Rs. 21,182.75 np. The consignment so sent was stated to have been destroyed by fire while the goods were kept in the godown of the destination station by the carrier.

WHEN a claim had been made for the value of the destruction of the goods by the complainant, the opposite party carrier would take up a stand that there was no deficiency on their part when especially the goods stored in the godown were destroyed by fire which cannot be anyone other than the act of God. WHEN such repudiation was made by the opposite parties, there was mental agony and anguish on the part of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant launched a complaint before the Forum below for recovery of the value of the goods destroyed by fire, compensation in an appropriate sum for mental agony and anguish and also cost of the proceedings. The Forum below, after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed on record and after hearing the projection of hues of views by the parties through their respective learned Counsels, ultimately rendered a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently directed them to refund the sum of Rs. 21,182.75 np. towards the value of the goods destroyed; a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and anguish besides cost of Rs. 1,000/-, all totalling to Rs. 27,182.75 np. and to pay interest of 18% per annum on the amounts so awarded.

IN the latter action, the complainant was stated to have consigned the goods valued at Rs. 4,680/- through the opposite party carrier to the consignee at a far off destination station. The goods so sent through the opposite parties of course reached the destination and when they were stored in the godown in the destination station, the goods were stated to have been destroyed by fire and when the complainant demanded payment of the value of the goods destroyed by fire from the opposite parties, the opposite parties contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part since the goods were destroyed by fire, which cannot be anyone other than the act of God, they are not at all liable to compensate the loss of goods to the complainant. This sort of a repudiating stand taken by the opposite party caused mental agony and anguish to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant launched a complaint before the Forum below for recovery of the value of the goods destroyed by fire, compensation in an appropriate sum for mental agony and anguish and also cost of the proceedings. The Forum below, after taking into consideration the materials placed on record and after hearing the projection of hues of views by the parties through their respective learned Counsels, ultimately recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 4,680/- representing the value of the goods destroyed by fire and to pay Rs. 1,500/- for mental agony and anguish besides a sum of Rs. 500/- towards costs all totalling to 6,680/-. It was further directed that the award so made shall bear interest @ 18% per annum. Aggrieved by the orders as above, the opposite parties resorted to these present actions.

ARGUMENTS of learned Counsel Mr. N.S. Mukundan representing learned Counsel Mr. N.S. Nandakumar appearing for the appellants/opposite parties and learned Counsel Ms. M. Usha representing learned Counsel Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan appearing for the respondents/complainants, were heard.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits warranting interference with the orders of the District Forum in these actions. There is no pale of controversy that the goods which were sent through the opposite parties were destroyed by fire at the destination station and the value of the goods so sent were respectively, Rs. 21,182.75 np. and Rs. 4,680/-. What is beyond dispute is that the opposite parties are not having any watchman in the destination godown. Pertinent it is to note that there was no watchman in the destination godown on the day when fire broke out. We may point out here the sanguine and salient provisions adumberated under Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865, which contains rule of evidence that "in any suit brought against a common carrier for the loss, damage or non-delivery of goods entrusted to him for carriage, it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that such loss, damage or non-delivery was owing to the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, his servants or agents". On the face of such a provision, it is for the opposite parties carrier to bring forth the materials on record to point out that the goods that were entrusted to their custody were destroyed by fire when there being no negligence on their part. And in the cases on hand there being no material having been placed on record in that regard, it goes without saying that the goods stored in the godowns at the destination stations were destroyed by fire on account of the gross negligence of the opposite parties, in the sense of not even appointing a watchman for the godown where the goods were stored. In such circumstances, the orders of the Forum below in these actions cannot at all be stated to be unsustainable. As such, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

In fine, both the appeals fail and they are dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.