VISHAK ROAD LINES (REGD.) vs P.M. MOHAMMED SALIM

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Ernakulam in OP No. 856/94. The opposite party is the appellant.

THE material allegations in the complaint are as follows: The opposite parties are running a public carrier concern. The complainant entrusted some bearings at Ernakulam for delivery at Kannur to Mitho Appliances on 26.6.94. According to the complainant the opposite party agreed to deliver within 3 days. However no delivery was effected. The consignee sent a letter dated 19.7.94 stating that they waited for two weeks and thareafter they purchased the bearing from other source and they had retained bearings which were delivered only on 3.8.94 and the complainant sent a registered notice on 2.8.94 for information whether the goods were delivered to them. The complainant received a reply from the opposite party stating that he tried to deliver the goods on 27.6.94 and 29.6.94 and some other days also but the shop of the consignee was either closed or there was no responsible person who was prepared to take delivery of the goods. Ultimately the complainant collected the goods from the office of the opposite party at Ernakulam.

The opposite party contended that as per paragraph 4 of the conditions under which they had accepted the goods, they will not be liable for the delay at the destination. They also alleged that the goods were attempted to be delivered on 27.7.94 and again on 29th evening and thereafter on the evening of 1st July, 1994. It is also alleged that two more attempts were made on the 9th and 11th of July, but the consignee refused to accept the goods and it was only on 3.8.94 a representative of the complainant came to collect the goods.

THE District Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and in that view passed an order directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,355/- and cost of Rs. 350/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that several attempts were made by the opposite party to deliver the goods to the consignee. He also pressed into service B2 to B6 copies of the lorry manifest. The District Forum disbelieved the version of the opposite party and also held Exbts. B2 to B6 cannot be relied on. In the version it is stated that there were attempts to deliver. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party except production of lorry manifest to show really attempts were made to deliver. It is difficult to believe that the shop was closed whenever the opposite party attempted to deliver the goods and persons who were present in the shop refused to accept the goods. As a matter of fact consignee urgently needed bearings as can be seen from the correspondence. In the circumstances we do not find any error in the finding of the District Forum that there is deficiency in service. We also feel that compensation of Rs. 1.355/- awarded in the instant case is reasonable and cannot be said to. be excessive. However it is admitted that the consignment charges were not paid and there was only an agreement to pay Rs. 40/- as charges so that amount has to be deducted from Rs. 1,355/-. Other amounts relate to the expenditure incurred by the complainant for telephoning to consignee. Thus we direct the opposite party to pay complainant Rs. 1,315/- as compensation and Rs. 350/- ordered as cost by the District Forum within one month from today. Appeal is dismissed subject to above modification. Appeal dismissed subject to modification.