- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the majority judgment of the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed while the President of the Forum has allowed the complaint.
(2.) IN this case the case was originally heard by the Bench consisting of the President and Male Member of the Forum. The President of the Forum vide his order dated 20.12.2003 allowed the complaint. On this order the Male Member Shri B.S. Dangwal did not sign. He wrote a separate order on 5.1.2004 much after the order of the President of the Forum and dismissed the complaint. On the judgment of the President, Mrs. Shashi Tandon, the Female Member endorsed on 17.7.2004 "1 do not agree with this judgment". On the same date she endorsed on the order of Sh. B.S. Dangwal "I agree with this judgment". She however gave a separate judgment on 17.7.2004 holding that the complaint is not maintainable in view of non -impleadment of the necessary party as also for want of notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. It appears that there was difference of opinion between the President and the Male Member of the Forum. The matter was referred to the third Member on her appointment on 17.7.2004. We do not want to go into this controversy, neither the parties preferred to raise it that the judgment is valid or invalid or void because all three persons have given separate judgments on separate dates. Both the parties argued the case on merits, therefore we preferred to proceed to hear the case on merits itself.
(3.) THE complainant Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. had booked medicines from Haldwani to Bareilly. The booking was on 20.8.1997, 24.8.1997, 1.4.1998, again on 1.4.1998, 17.2.1998, then again on 17.2.1998, then on 2.6.1998. It is surprising that even the booking of 20.8.1997 was not delivered, still the complainant went on booking for about 10 months. All the G.Rs. were endorsed to the Punjab National Bank, Bareilly. According to the complainant, articles worth Rs. 2,44,211.17 were booked but these articles were never delivered at Bareilly. The stockists were directed to approach Bareilly to take the delivery but he informed that the consignment has not reached there. In para 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that a registered notice was given on 28.6.1999 but in spite of the notice nothing was heard from the opposite parties, hence a complaint was filed. The opposite parties filed written statement and alleged that the consignment was booked. All the bookings are separate transactions. For each booking, there is separate cause of action. The delivery was to be made by Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly. The complainant is not a consumer. The provisions of Section 10 of the Carriers Act have not been complied with. The opposite parties are not common carrier but the common carrier is Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly, who has acknowledged the delivery of the books under G.Rs. in dispute. The transporter has not been made party to the proceedings and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.;