EXPRESS GOODS SERVICE Vs. STANDARD TEXTILE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal arises out of the decision of the State Commission, Punjab, dated December 15, 1992.

(2.) THE Complainant firm entrusted to the Opposite Party eight consignments of goods of textile and knitted fabrics for carriage from Amritsar to Delhi and for onward delivery to the consignees. The particulars of the goods receipts, date of entrustment, bill number and price of the goods are given in the complaint. In the corresponding para of the written statement, it is admitted that the goods were consigned with the Opposite Party. The plea of the complainant is that he had hired the services of the Opposite Party - Transport Company - for onward transmission of the goods to its customers in Delhi, but, due to utter negligence of the Opposite Party, the goods were never delivered to the customers of the Complainant and the Opposite Party unnecessarily kept the goods in their godown with oblique motive and later on in the garb of fire has misappropriated the goods which could fetch them very high price. Not only this, none of the customers was even informed to take delivery of the consignment though the Opposite Party had undertaken to deliver the same to the customers of the complainant at their destination. The Complainant prayed for return of the goods or payment of the price of the goods at market price beside claiming the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, expenses of Rs. 10,000/- and interest at the rate of 18% per annum as also the costs of the proceedings.

(3.) THE State Commission, Punjab, which tried the case held that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be no dispute that the Complainant hired the services of the transport company in connection with the transporting of the goods for consideration and thus the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act. It repelled the other objection holding that the consumer of service for commercial purpose is not barred from claiming protection under the Act. On merits, it was found that there was not an iota of documentary evidence to support the some what curious plea of sudden fire having broken out in the godown of the Opposite Party. An adverse inference was drawn against the Opposite Party for not placing all relevant material in their custody for consideration and for withholding the real facts. The State Commission directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant Rs. 1,46,971.37 together with interest at 18% p.a. on that amount w.e.f. 28th October, 1991 till the date of the payment. The Opposite Parties were also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the Complainant. The complaint was thus allowed with costs assessed at Rs.1,000/-.