- (1.) THE complainant's case is that the complainant entrusted 23 bales of handloom cotton with the 2nd opposite party for transport from Karur to Mumbai on 14.10.1996. On 8.8.1998 the complainant's firm came to know from the consignee that the consignment has not been received. The representative of the 1st opposite party approached the complainant and promised to settle the matter. The complainant demanded the opposite party to pay the value of the consignment. In spite of repeated demands and notice, the opposite parties have not settled the matter. Thus, there is non -delivery. Hence the complaint.
(2.) THE 2nd opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable. The parties are governed by Carriers of Goods Act. The remedy of the complainant is only before a Civil Court for recovery of damages. Hence the opposite parties pray that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
(3.) THE lower Forum accepted the complaint and granted the award as prayed for. The main contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. We find that though the consignment was booked on 14.10.1996 it is only on 3.8.1998 the Canteen Stores Department, Bombay, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, for whom the consignment was meant have written to say that the 23 bales of item booked through Jai Hind Roadways Ltd., have not been received by them. This letter also refers to LR No. 15293. After receiving this letter, the complainant has written to the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party who is a branch of the 1st opposite party have also written on 22.12.1998 requesting the 1st opposite party to settle the matter stating that the complainant is a regular customer who have been booking bulk quantum through their branch and previously twice the consignor faced the same kind of non -delivery and the same was delivered and that the 1st opposite party must amicably settle the matter by paying the sum of Rs. 1,18,938.75. The 1st opposite party did not choose to send any reply to the same whereupon the complainant sent a lawyer's notice under Ex. A7 which has been received by the 1st opposite party under the acknowledgement Ex. A8 but did not choose to send any reply to the same. Therefore, in that context, the present complaint has been laid. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is also in this connection worthwhile to note that it is only the 2nd opposite party who have filed their objections while the 1st opposite party have remained absent. The 2nd opposite party is only a branch of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has not chosen to enter appearance or contest the matter. The contention that the complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted at all. They availed the services of the opposite party by paying the necessary freight for transportation of the consignment from Karur to Mumbai. It is accepted by the 2nd opposite party on his behalf the 1st opposite party for delivery at Mumbai. The delivery was not effected. To the letter of the 2nd opposite party as well as to the notice of the complainant, no reply has been sent. Therefore, in such circumstances, the contention that the complainant is not a consumer is without any merit. It is not necessary for the complainant to seek the redressal in a Civil Forum. There is no bar for the complainant in moving the Consumer Forum for the necessary relief. There is of course a breach of contract in the sense that the consignment was not delivered as per the contract of carriage but that does not prevent the complainant from appraoching this Forum since this is a parallel remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complainant will not be in any manner prevented from resorting to this remedy. Therefore, in such circumstances, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal.;