EAST INDIA TRANSPORT CO Vs. MEHTA FENT CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals involved identical facts. Although the respondents were different and they had filed separate complaints before the District Forum, Pali but such complaints were decided by two orders of different dates. These were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. The main order shall be placed on the record of Appeal No.1887/97 and a copy of such order shall be placed on the record of all other four appeals.

(2.) The undisputed facts in all the appeals are that the respondents had hired the services of the appellant, which is a transporter, for transportation of their goods from Pali to different places in India. M/s. Mehta Fent Centre, respondent in Appeal Nos.1887/97 and 1888/97 had sent their consignment to Purulia (West Bengal), M/s. Shah Bhanwarlal, respondent in Appeal No.1890/97 to Ranchi (Bihar), M/s. Sati Dying and Printing, respondent in Appeal No.1925/97 to Purulia (West Bengal) and M/s. Jain Fabrics, respondent in Appeal No.1926/97 to Singhboom (Bihar ). It is also not in dispute that all the consignments of all the respondents were being transported by the appellant by one and the same truck. But the vehicle was hijacked on its way to Ranchi and the goods of the respondents were also taken away by the hijackers. It may be stated that the goods being transported was insured in all the given cases. The appellant issued non-delivery certificate of the goods in favour of the respondents. The respondents, however, filed their respective complaints before the Forum at Pali and by its two separate orders the Forum decreed their claim against the appellant.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that since the goods, being transported by them, were insured and such goods had been hijacked by the hijackers in the course of transit, the Insurance Company concerned and not the present appellants were liable to reimburse the respondents for the loss occasioned to them. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that since the appellant transporter had undertaken to transport the goods to their destination, the appellant also was having the character of insurer qua the respondents and, therefore, the appellant cannot escape from their liability to re-imburse the respondents for the loss suffered by them.