PUBLIC CARRIERS TRUCK UNION RAI MAJRA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, two appeals are being disposed of, however, judgment is prepared in Appeal No.732 of 1997. In this case Chloroform Tech (Alcohol Stabilised) was carried by the appellant and the shortage reported was 665 kgs. valuing at Rs.23,647/- whereas in the case of second Appeal No.733 of 1997, Dimethyl Formamide was carried and the shortage reported was 322 kgs. valuing at Rs.24,074/-.

(2.) This appeal is by the Public Carriers Truck Union, Rai Majra, Ropar challenging order of District Forum, Ropar dated May 28, 1997 whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.23,647/- to the complainant the National Insurance Company along with Rs.1,500/- as costs. Most of the facts are admitted hence they can briefly be summarised. The complainant M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories, Mohali entrusted a consignment containing Chloroform Tech (Alcohol Stabilised) with the opposite party vide Goods Receipt dated February 16, 1996 for being carried from Toansa to Mohali. A short delivery to the extent of 665 kgs. of Chloroform Tech valuing Rs.23,647/- was found. Since the goods were insured with National Insurance Company, after estimation of the loss by the Surveyor, the aforesaid amount was paid by the Insurance Company to M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories. Thereafter, under subrogation right, both the National Insurance Company and M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories filed the complaint against the Carrier claiming that loss occurred on account of negligent act of the opposite party in short delivery of the consignment. On behalf of the carrier it was represented that it was association of private persons and could not be sued as such. On merits, the booking of the consignment and carriage of the goods was admitted. The short delivery was also admitted. Legal pleas were taken that truck owner or the driver were not impleaded as parties. On evidence of parties, the impugned order was passed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum wrongly distinguished the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Punjab State Club, Shimla V/s. Municipal Committee, Shimla, 1959 AIR(P&H) 220, wherein it was held that the club was association of persons and could not be sued. The District Forum rightly distinguished the aforesaid judgment as not applicable to the case in hand. It may be observed that complainant, a consumer is a person who had hired the services of the opposite party for consideration and on alleging deficiency in rendering service, he could file the complaint. Vide Annexure A-22 (Goods Receipt, Note), M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories hired the services of the appellant Truck Union for carriage of the goods as stated above. Thus, the present appellant has to be the opposite party whose services were hired by the complainant for consideration. The ratio of the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court referred to above, therefore, is not applicable to the case in hand.