UMESH KUMAR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-1-1
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 04,2010

UMESH KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
MOHINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY means of this common order, we propose to dispose of these appeals as identical questions of law and fact are involved.
(2.) IT may also be noted in this behalf that Appeal No.131/2007 has arisen out of the order passed by District Forum below in Complaint No.530/2003 on 13.3.2007. While allowing the complaint, appellants have been directed jointly and severally to indemnify respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs.27,600/ - alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.4.2004 till realization alongwith cost of Rs.1500/ -.
(3.) LIKEWISE Appeal No.132/2005 has arisen out of the order passed in Complaint No.531/2003 on 13.3.2007 by the said Forum. While allowing the complaint of respondent No.1, appellants in this case also have been held jointly and severally liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs.1,16,400/ - alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.4.2004 till its realization alongwith cost of Rs.1500/ -. In both these complaints, appellants have been directed to comply with the impugned orders within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submitted that there was no privity of contract between the appellants on one side and respondent No.1 in these appeals on the other. Reason being that Umesh Kumar was the owner of the vehicle whereas Prithvi Raj was the driver of the said vehicle employed by the former. The vehicle was attached to Rohru Truck Operators Union. Therefore, according to him appeal was bad for non joinder of the said Union. With a view to buttress this submission Mr. Verma submitted that there was no direct dealing between his clients and respondent No.1 in these cases. In the alternative, he submitted that at best his clients can be said to be agent and nothing more. Therefore unless principal is held liable, holding the agent liable as is the situation in these appeals is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In addition to this, Mr. Verma submitted that respondent No.1 in both these appeals had already received money from Rohru Truck Operators Union for the loss of the apple boxes which were subject matter of both the complaints. Reliance in this behalf was placed by him on paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by way of evidence. Therefore if the impugned orders are upheld, it will tantamount to undue enrichment of respondent No.1 in these cases, as such on this ground also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Lastly, it was urged that both these appeals in any case deserve to be allowed for want of notice under Carriers Act to his clients even if earlier all submissions fall to the ground.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.