ANIL INDUSTRIES Vs. KANTI-BOMBAY ROAD CARRIER
LAWS(MPCDRC)-2006-5-3
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION
Decided on May 08,2006

ANIL INDUSTRIES Appellant
VERSUS
Kanti -Bombay Road Carrier Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 4.9.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Katni dismissing complaint of appellant claiming compensation from the respondent -carrier.
(2.) IT is no more in dispute that appellant -firm had on 1.7.1998 entrusted to the respondent -"Katni Bombay Road Carrier" 100 bags of dal masoor weighing 10 tons for transportation from Katni to Chennai. The goods were to be delivered to a firm M/s. Al Fatha Enterprises at Chennai. The transportation charges were fixed at Rs. 15,000. The goods were loaded in a truck bearing registration No. AP 21 U 4328. In the goods delivery receipt the value of the goods was also mentioned at Rs. 2,03,500. Admittedly the consignment did not reach to its destination and seemed to have been mis -appropriated during transit. Timely information of non -delivery of goods was also given by the appellant to the respondent who on December 8, 1998 gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000 to the appellant. The cheque was however dishonoured by the concerning bank for want of sufficient balance in the account of the respondent. An intimation to this effect was given to the appellant by the bank finally on 24.12.1998. Appellant thereafter served a demand notice dated 17.4.1999 on the respondent through registered post which was replied by the respondent on 20.4.1999.
(3.) THE appellant approached the Forum below claiming Rs. 2,03,500 towards price of the goods with interest @ 24% p.a. with a further compensation Rs. 5,000 for the harassment and cost of litigation. It was alleged that the respondent -carrier was responsible for safe transit and delivery of the consignment to the consignee and its failure to do so was constituted deficiency on its part. The complaint was resisted by the respondent on various grounds and it was contended that the respondent -company had only made the said truck available to the appellant on his demand on commission payment basis. The goods in question were booked at complainant s own risk and since the goods were not got insured by the appellant, the respondent was not responsible for non -delivery of the said goods. Said cheque of Rs. 30,000, it was further contended, was given to the appellant as a gesture of goodwill and to render financial assistance to him. After the bank had dishonoured the cheque, cash amount of Rs. 30,000 was offered to the complainant who however refused to accept the same.;


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