EAST INDIA TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. M.S.C.D.ZARDA WORKS
LAWS(APCDRC)-1998-11-1
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on November 24,1998

EAST INDIA TRANSPORT AGENCY Appellant
VERSUS
M.S.C.D.Zarda Works Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.PARVATHA RAO,PRESIDENT - (1.) his is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties in O.P. No. 551/1994 on the file of the Hyderabad District Forum -II questioning the order of that Forum dated 22.9.1998 directing them to pay to the complainant Rs. 52,795/ - with interest at 18% per annum from 1.9.1993 till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 500/ - for the loss of the goods entrusted to them by the complainant for transport. The complainant in the O.P. is the respondent in the appeal.
(2.) The admitted facts are that 11 cartons of Charminar Quiwam and one parcel containing advertisement material was en trusted to the 2nd appellant for transport to Calcutta under consignment note dated 9.5.1992 showing the value of the goods as Rs. 52,795/ -. The freight charges of Rs. 1,859/ - were to be paid on receipt of the goods at Calcutta. The consignment was rebooked from Calcutta to Hyderabad on 13.8.1992. That is not disputed by the appellants in their counter filed before the District Forum. Their contention was that the freight charges were not paid and therefore they did not send the goods from Calcutta to Hyderabad. However no intimation to that effect was given by them to the complainant. Subsequently, after waiting for the goods, the complainant sought redirection of the goods instead of Hyderabad to Cuttack under redirection note of 9.2.1993. The case of the appellants was that while the goods were in the godown at Calcutta the consignment was spoiled due to rain and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation destroyed the same. This was stated in paragraph 4 of the counter of the appellants as follows : ....it is true that the complainant re -booked the consignment from Calcutta to Hyderabad on 13.8.1992, but not paid freight charges of the consignment... It is submitted that after re -booking the complainant herein requested not to transport the goods to Hyderabad as the Company wanted to send the goods to Cuttack. and re -direct note was given only on 9.2.1993 to transport the goods to Cuttack It is submitted that while the goods were in the godown at Calcutta the consignment was spoiled due to rain and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation destroyed the same as it was emitting foul and poisonous smell posing a threat to life of human and cattle. It is submitted that after reaching the Calcutta godown the consignment was not lifted by the consignee for a period of more than 9 months. 
(3.) The District Forum considered all aspects of the matter and held that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (appellants before us) in not sending back the goods to Hyderabad when they were rebooked for that purpose on 13.8.1992 itself. The District Forum further held as follows : The transporter is under an obligation to take all necessary precautions to protect the goods while they are in transit. Either in case the goods got wet while in transit from Hyderabad to Calcutta or became wet in the godown of the opposite party at Calcutta, it shows clear failure of its obligation in protecting the goods entrusted to it. It is to be noted that the case of the opposite party is not that the goods got spoiled due to long. storage, as such, the contention that the complainant did not take the delivery of goods for a very long time des not help its case. The opposite party, whose services are hired by the complainant was not diligent enough to protect the goods and there is clear deficiency of service and there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  In the result the District Forum directed the appellants to make good the loss suffered by the complainant by paying Rs. 52,795/ -, which was admittedly the cost of the goods consigned, together with interest at 18% per annum from 1.9.1993. We do not find any basis for interfering with this order. When the goods were in the custody of the transporter it was the duty of the transporter to see that the goods were properly kept with reasonable care. In the present case no material had been placed before the District Forum to show how the goods could get wet when they were in a packed condition.;


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