KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSIONVAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL. No.794/05 JUDGMENT DATED : 20.01.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SHRI. K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Suresh Nath, Proprietor, M/s.Nathan Transports, “Kavitha”, Near IOC Pump : APPELLANT Karakkamandapom, Nemom.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram The Proprietors Shri.Hambaja Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport, Contractors, 199 wall tax road, Chennai – 600 003. (By Adv.Sri.S.S.Kalkura) Vs 1. B.Thrivikraman, Manager, Canara Bank, Hadiabad, : RESPONDENTS Phagwara, Punjab (Former Manager, Canara Bank, Thrikkovilvattam, Kollam.) (By Adv.Sri.R.Bahuleyan) 2. The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kollam. (By Adv.Sri. Sreevaraham G.Satheesh) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in the file of O.P.445/2003. The appellant is the 1st opposite party in the above said O.P. who prefers this appeal. In short the complainant is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.95,000 to the complainant in the account of loss and mental agony substantiate due to deficiency of service, negligence and unfair trade practice and other reliefs. The allegation to the complainant is that he is a Manager of the Canara Bank, Thrikkovilavattom Branch at Kollam up to July 2003. While so the complainant was transferred to Canara Bank, Phagwara Branch in Punjab State. In connection with the transporting of complainant’s articles, utencils and vehicle to Punjab, the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party promised to transport the household utencils and articles and maruthi car belonging to the complainant to Phagwara safely and without causing any loss or damages. Accordingly the 1st opposite party promised to deliver the articles and car within one week of loading of it or at any rate within a maximum period of 10 days. The above mentioned articles were loaded into 2nd opposite party’s vehicle on 24.07.03 from Mukhathala in Kollam District. The opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.45,000/- as the freight charge for transporting the said articles to Punjab. Based on the assurance of the opposite parties the complainant and his family reached at Phagwara on 30.07.2003 expending the delivery of goods and car. But the opposite parties have delivered the goods only on 27.08.2003. The car was delivered only on 03.09.2003 on delivery of the goods it was found that the following articles destroyed and damaged. The complainant given the vary of each articles damages in details in his complaint. As per the complainant, he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the opposite parties. Even though the complainant made demand for compensation by issuing notice, the opposite parties neither settled the amount nor issued any reply in that connection. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prays for relief. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have filed the version and admitted transaction. According to them the items reached at the destination on 28.08.2003 and the same was duly received by the complainant. The items were delivered in the same state and condition as they were entrusted with the opposite party. The complainant was aggrieved because of the delay in the items reaching the complainant. So also there was no occasion of heed for the opposite parties to play the car. The complainant had noted the kilometers fun and at the time of delivery the complainant and rechecked the same and only after that had he accepted the delivery. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, but 3rd opposite party taken another contention that he is not having any contractual obligation and relationship with the complainant. The damages to the goods and to the motor car stated in para 6 and 7 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of 3rd opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked five documents; they are Exts.P1 to P5. For the opposite parties DW1 is examined as witness and a document marked as Ext.D1. The Forum below relied a decision Patel Roadways Ltd v/s Birla Yamaha Ltd civil appeal No.907/96 1(2000)CPJ 42 (SC). According to these decisions the claim of damage for loss or deterioration of goods entrusted to a carrier it is not necessary to establish the complainant the negligence alleged against the opposite party. The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed 1 and 2 opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as loss and damages sustained coupled with Rs.1000/- as litigation charges. The amounts carry 9% interest. This appeal prefers from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day the appeal came before this commission heard both parties and this commission heard the counsel for the appellant/respondent. We heard detailed arguments and perused the order passed by the Forum below. We are seeing that the complainant whose state certain loss and damages. So he entitled to get the compensation in that he entrusted every goods with the opposite parties with bonafide belief that the opposite party will take proper care and protection to its articles. But he also has any impression that the opposite parties will be delivered the goods sent by him as a list and as well as condition. Anyway some deficiencies proved who against the opposite parties we are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is strictly accordance with the law and evidence. But we decided to modify the result portion of the Forum below. We are directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- and this commission hereby set aside. The litigation charges Rs.1,000/- and the interest ordered for the amount from the date of the order. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and directed the opposite parties 1 to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant. Both parties are directed to suffer to their respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. | 
