Vinod Seth vs RATTAN ROAD LINES

THE complainant in this case is Mr. Vinod Seth, Principal and Senior Superintendent of Police, RTC-3, CRPF, Pallippuram, Thiruvananthapuram. On his transfer from Delhi to Pallippuram, he had entrusted a consignment of eighty packages as per consignment note Chalan No. 636 dated 15.5.1990, with opposite party transporting company M/s. Rattan Road Lines, 202 Kamala Market, New Delhi 2 to be transported from Delhi CRP Centre, Pallippuram. THE total transportation charge was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- out of which the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in advance on 15.5.1990 itself. THE balance amount had to be paid at the time of delivery of goods and was paid at the time of delivery. THE consignment consisted of household articles, clothes kitchenwares etc.

THE opposite party had made the complainant believe that there would not be any transhipment enroute and the goods would be delivered at Pallippuram within seven days from 15.5.1990. But the goods were not delivered till 3.6.1990. During the period between 15.5.1990 and 3.6.1990, the complainant was making several enquiries through letters and telephone regarding the whereabouts of the consigned goods. For that he had even gone to Delhi twice. Even though the delivery of goods had taken place, on 3.6.1990, i.e. after the expiry of 18 days, it was with a complete loss because of short delivery and damaged condition of goods. Most of the goods were in a wet and broken condition. The complainant alleges that this was due to the negligence, misconduct and criminal breach of trust on the part of the opposite party. The details of loss of goods by way of short delivery and damages caused etc. were estimated by the complainant in the presence of the driver of the truck at the time of delivery. The complainant had sent a compensation claim to the opposite party. But there was no response from them. So, he lodged a petition before the S.I. of Police, Mangalapuram, Thiruvananthapuram against the opposite party alleging criminal breach of trust and it was rejected due to lack of jurisdiction as the place of occurence was at Kamala Market area, New Delhi. About the same matter he had sent a petition to the S.H.O., Kamala Market, New Delhi. On 18.7.1990 he sent a suit notice to the opposite party. No reply was sent by the opposite party.

So, the complainant filed a complaint before this Commission claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,09,260/-. He claimed Rs. 73,260/- as cost of loss of goods and short delivery, Rs. 5,000/- as the amount spent for the purchase of essential kitchen wares and Rs. 6,000/- as the expenditure for the purchase of garments etc. for timely use and wearings etc. and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

A notice was sent by this Commission to the opposite party by registered post on 8.2.1991 for filing its version to the complainant on or before 11.3.1991 and the case was posted to 18.3.1991. No version was filed on that day and the case was posted to 1.4.1991 for evidence and hearing. The opposite party neither appeared in person nor through counsel. The complainant appeared through counsels. The complainant was examined as PW1, but not cross examined by the opposite party. Fourteen documents were produced by the complainant and marked. Exhibit P1 is the consignment note Chalan No. 636 dated 15.5.1990 issued to the opposite party. Exhibit P2 is the packing note dated 15.5.1990. Exhibit P3 is the letter dated 29.5.1990 sent by the complainant to S.H.O., Kamala Market area, New Delhi. Exhibit P4 is the goods delivery certificate and Exhibit P5 is the copy of the complaint filed before the S.I. of Police, Mangalapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. Exhibit P6 is the copy of the relevant portion of the petition register maintained by the Mangalapuram Police Station. Exhibit P7 is the copy of the compensation claim dated 6.6.90 lodged by the complainant before the opposite party. Exhibit P8 is the acknowledgement and Exhibit P9 is the copy of the complaint dated 5.6.1990 filed before the S.H.O., Kamala Market, New Delhi. Exhibit P10 is the investigation certificate dated 6.6.1990 issued by the S.I. of Police, Mangalapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the complaint dated 3.6.1990 sent to S.H.O., Kamala Market, New Delhi. Exhibit P12 is the copy of the suit notice, Exhibit P13(a) and (b) are the postal receipt and acknowledgement and Exhibit P14 is the copy of the letter dated 25.6.1990 sent by the opposite party to P.K. Road Lines.

ON a perusal of the complaint and the documents produced and upon the hearing of the counsel for the complainant, the following issues arises : (a) Whether the complainant is a consumer and had he hired the services of the opposite party. (b) Whether the service rendered by the opposite party is defective and if so what is the quantum of compensation? The material part of the definition of ''Consumer'' contained in S. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as follows, (d) Consumer means any person who,-

(1). (2) Hires any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid, partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and include any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid, or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person".

S. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act reads, "service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service". The expression ''service'' contained in S. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act specifically includes within its scope the provision of facilities in connection with transport. In this case on 15.5.1990 the complainant had engaged the services of the opposite party M/s. Rattan Road Lines, 202, Kamala Market, New Delhi, who is engaged in the business of transportation of goods, for the transportation of certain goods from Delhi to CRP Centre, Pallippuram, Thiruvananthapuram. For that he had paid an advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 15.5.1990 itself. Exhibit P1, the consignment note Chalan No. 636 dated 15.5.1990 proves these facts beyond doubt. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant had hired the service of the opposite party for a consideration and hence the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

NOW the important question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite party. One of the allegations of the complainant is that eventhough the opposite party had made him believe that there would not be any transhipment enroute and the goods would be delivered at Pallippuram within 7 days, there was transhipment enroute and delayed delivery and as a result complainant had sustained mental pain and heavy loss by purchasing new domes, kitchenwares etc.

AS per Exhibit PI, the consignment note delivered by the Rattan Road Lines, the opposite party, the goods were sent from Delhi in a Lorry with the Registration Number DEG-1129 and its driver was one Ranveer Singh. But according to Exhibit P4, the goods delivery certificate, the goods were delivered at Pallippuram in a different truck No. TN 41/Z 5067. The delivery was made at Pallippuram by one P. Muthu, Driver of Truck No. TN-41/Z 5067 (Dl No. 2314/91 Tirupur), M/s. Balmurugan Lorry Transporting Company, Bangalore through the National Lorry Transporting Company Quilon -1. Mr. Amir Hamsa the agent of National Lorry Transporting Company was also present at the time of delivery. Along with the complainant, both P. Muthu, and Amir Hamsa had signed Exhibit P4, the goods delivery certificate. Exhibit P4 shows that the goods were delivered only on 3.6.1990 and hence there was a delay of 18 days. So, we have no debut that the allegation of the complainant holds water. We find that there was transhipment enroute and delayed delivery by the opposite party. The main allegation of the complainant is that eventhough the opposite party had effected a delayed delivery, that too with complete loss by way of short delivery and damages due to negligence, misconduct and criminal breach of trust of the opposite party.

As per Exhibit PI 80 package were loaded in Lorry No. DEG 1129 Exhibit P2 is the packing note signed by Ranveer Singh, the driver of the Lorry No. DEG 1129, contains the description of the articles which were packed and handed over to M/s. Rattan Road Lines. In Exhibit P4, the goods delivery certificate, the following losses and damages were listed and admitted. 1. Losses (i) One box containing 10 sets of Civil terricotton clothes, 3 uniform sets, 1 woollen tunic, 1 woollen suit, 1 Jacket Woollen (imported) etc. (ii) One box containing 15 sarees of different varieties, ten Terricotton suits, 4 D.C.M. bed sheets, 2 cut glasses decoration pieces (imported)

(Total two boxes) 2. Damages (i) 5 (five) boxes with garments of children, wife and self bed sheets, bed covers, pillow covers. These items have been completely damaged due to rain water. (ii) One sofa set purchased about three months back from Delhi has been totally scratched and cracked. (iii) Two dining chairs cracked and scratched, (iv) Two marble pieces Broken into pieces, (v) Two plywood boards of two cots missing, (vi) Refrigerator became useless due to full of scratches and dents. Now not in working condition.

All these losses were admitted by P. Muthu, Driver of Truck No. TN-41/Z 5067 (Dl No. 2314/91 Tirupur), M/s. Balamurugan Lorry Transporting Company, Bangalore and Amir Hamsa, agent, National Lorry Transporting Company, Thamarakkulam Road, Quilon by signing exhibit P4, the goods delivery certificate.

IT is already evident from Exhibits PI and P2 that 80 packages were handed over by the complainant to the opposite party Rattan Road Lines to be transported from Delhi to Pallipporam, Thiruvananthapuram in Lorry No. DEG 1129. But as per exhibit P4 the goods were delivered at Pallipputam by a different driver one P. Muthu, in a different truck No. TN-41/Z 5067 (Dl No. 2314/91 Tirupur) of M/s. Balamurugan Lorry Transporting Company, Quilon. So, we think that on 3.6.1990 the, goods were delivered to the complainant, by P. Muthu, Driver of M/s. Balamurugan Transporting Company and Amir Hamsa, the agent of National Lorry Transporting Company, for and on behalf of the opposite party Rattan Road Lines. From the circumstances and from the nature of the transaction we assume that they were the agents of the opposite party Rattan Road Lines for the purpose of delivery of goods to the complainant at Pallippuram. S. 229 of the Indian Contract Act reads, "Any notice given or information obtained by the agent, provided it be given or obtained in the course of business transacted by him for the principal, shall as between the principal and 3rd parties, have the same legal consequences as if it had been given to or obtained by the principal".

ACCORDINGLY the knowledge of the agent is said to have the knowledge of the . principal. So in this case also the opposite party, principal is said to have constructive knowledge of the losses and damages caused to the goods. Similarly a principal is bound by the admissions made by his agents. So, we are of the view that the opposite party is bound by the admissions made in Exhibit P4 by P. Muthu, Driver of truck No. TN-41/Z 5067 (Dl No. 2314/91 Tirupur), M/s. Balamurugan Lorry Transporting Company and Amir Hamsa, agent, National Lorry Transporting Company, Quilon regarding the loss of goods. Subsequently some other losses also were detected. Those losses also were enlisted in Exhibit P7, the photostat copy of the compensation claim dated 6.6.1990 placed before M/s. Rattan Road Lines, 318, New Loha Mandi Indore 452001 (MP) which contains a schedule of estimated cost of damages. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the facts contained in Exhibit P7.

EXHIBIT P14 is the copy of the letter written by one Vijay Sankar Thiwari for the opposite party to M/s. P.K. Roadways, New Delhi, the copy of which is sent to the complainant. The letter says as follows : "Please find enclosed herewith photocopies of all the relevant documents received by me from Sri. Vinod Seth, Commandant, CRPF, Trivandrum. The papers attached alongwith the letter are self explanatory. And I am sorry to say that despite your repeated assurances given to me, I am forced to face such an akward situation which I have never faced earlier".

EXHIBIT P14 amounts to an implied admission by the opposite party of all the allegations and claims made by the complainant against it, by way of letter and compensation claim, regarding the defective delivery and regarding loss and damages caused to the goods entrusted with it to be delivered at Pallippuram. Relying on these documents we believe that the goods were delivered with complete loss and in a damaged and broken condition. Exhibit P4 shows that two boxes were missing and the others including refrigerator were delivered in a damaged and broken condition and five boxes were completely damaged due to rain water. So, there is no doubt that the opposite party was very negligent and it rendered and service negligently and recklessly.

Besides that, the terms and conditions No. 2 stated in Exhibit PI reads thus, "shortage of goods or luggage due to any cause whatever will be treated as a criminal breach of trust". This shows the extent of liability of the opposite party in case of a defective delivery.

THEREFORE we hold that the service rendered by the opposite party is a defective one and that the delivery of goods with loss and in a damaged and broken condition was due to negligence and misconduct of the opposite party and therefore the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant estimated the amount of damage by loss of goods and short delivery at Rs. 73,260/-. We have no doubt that the goods were delivered in a lost, damaged and broken condition. Exhibit P4, the goods delivery certificate proves these facts beyond doubt. Along with exhibit P7 dated 6.6.1990, a schedule of estimated cost of damages prepared by the complainant was sent to the opposite party. Though no reply sent to the complainant, the opposite party had sent Exhibit P14 letter dated 25.6.1990 to P.K. Roadways, New Delhi the copy of which was sent to the complainant impliedly admits these facts. On a perusal of exhibit P4, we find that several costly household articles such as Refrigerator, sofa set, 5 boxes of dress materials, dinner sets, tea sets etc. were lost and damaged. We think that the estimated cost of goods fixed as Rs. 73,260/- after depreciation is a reasonable amount. Therefore we direct the opposite parties to pay that amount to the complainant.

AN amount of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed as the money spent for the purchase of essential kitchen wares and Rs. 6,000/- for purchasing garments etc. because of the delayed delivery of goods. We think that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in total is reasonable and we order the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on this score. For the mental agony suffered, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. We have no doubt that the complainant in this case had undergone mental strain and agony. But we do not think that the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- claimed for mental agony is a reasonable amount. We think that Rs. 500/- is a reasonable compensation on this score. We order the opposite party to pay the complainant his costs which we fix as Rs.500/-. In the result, the opposite party will pay a total sum of Rs. 78,760/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. The opposite party will pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order and in default, the principal Officer of Rattan Road Lines will suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year. - Appeal allowed.