JUDGMENT

1.      Heard Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate appearing for the appellant. In spite of service of notice, no one appears for the respondents. The respondents are proceeded ex-parte.

2.      This appeal has been filed against the judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat dated 11.05.2012 whereby the complaint has been dismissed on two preliminary grounds firstly there were two invoices therefore two separate complaints ought to had been filed and secondly, the Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

3.      The appellant filed the complaint for following reliefs:-

          (a) The Hon’ble State Commission may be pleased to pass an order for the payment of Rs.702998/- including Rs.639233/- for loss of value of goods.  Rs.28765/- being interest @ 18% per annum till 29.06.2000, Rs.25000/- miscellaneous expenses and Rs.10000/- cost of this complaint.

          (b) The Hon’ble State Commission may be pleased to award interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization of the amount of award.

          (c) The Hon’ble State Commission may be pleased to grant any other relief as is deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice.

4.      The appellant stated in the complaint that the complainant was a public Ltd. company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; and having its Registered Office at 124, Greams Road, Chennai-600006 and was mainly engaged into the business of manufacturing and marketing of rubber tyres and tubes of various kinds and purposes of other connected products in India and abroad through its branches and offices situated at various places. The opposite parties-1 and 2 were the branches of M/s Lalji Mulji Transport Co. and doing business of handling, carting and transportation of goods into various parts of Gujarat State and surrounding arrears through their branches. The Complainant entered into an agreement on 15.02.1994 with the Opponent-1 for the purpose of transportation of its goods. The said agreement had fixed the terms and conditions agreed by both parties and both the parties were bound by the terms and conditions contained into the said agreement. Both parties to the said agreement put their authorized officer signatures in the said agreement as a mark of consent and acceptance to the said agreement and accepted the terms and conditions embodied to the said agreement. Some of such terms and conditions were reproduced with respective clauses which are as under:

“4. The contractors will issue and deliver to the company lorry receipts consigned to dispatch one for each customer consignment with all the details of the consignment with all the details of the consignment such as Company invoice number, number of packages/products, weight freight to pay paid and such other particulars as the company may require so as to identify each consignment.  The company will negotiate the documents through bank in the same manner as railway receipts. 

6.      Under no circumstances will be contractors deliver the products to customer or their authorized representatives without producing the lorry receipt issued to the company as hereinabove provided (consignees copy duly endorsed in favour of the customers by the company or the bank through which the company has sent the documents as shown on the company’s invoice given to contractors). The contractor shall be responsible to the company for reimbursement of the value of the product or at the option of the company replacement of the products by identical products of the company where delivery has been effected in any other manner. 

8.      Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the lorry receipts or transport receipts or goods consignment notes issued by the contractors to the company, the terms and conditions in this agreement shall prevail over and supersede the express or implied terms and conditions. If any printed, typed/written on the way bills, or otherwise, in so far and to the extent that the letter are inconsistent with their terms and conditions in this agreement. 

12.    The contractors agree to accept full responsibility for the products delivered to them until they are turned over to the respective customers against lorry receipts. The contractors also agree to accept, responsibility and to hold themselves liable for loss, damages, non-delivery or short delivery of the products due to any act of fire explosion, floods earthquake, rains water strikes, lockouts, riots, civil commotion, malicious damage, wind storm, seizure of strucks, road accidents, breakages theft burglary, pilferage and or any other reasons, whether in the course of transit or while the products are lying at the godown or storage facilities of the contractors or their agents.  The decision of the company in respect of all claims for loss, damages, non-delivery or short delivery as aforesaid shall be final and binding on the contractors. The contractors shall promptly issue a certificate in respect of the product lost, damages non-delivered or short delivered. The company shall be entitled, without prejudice to any other right or remedy vested under or in pursuance of this agreement or at law, conduct, recover and/or set off from all or any of the contractors bills or any account whatever the amount determined by the company to be payable to it by the contractors for loss, damages, non-deliver or short delivery of the products as aforesaid.

15.    The contractors agree that if any consignment of the products are not accepted by the customers they will upon receipt of written instructions from the company and consignee’s copy duly endorsed within reasonable time rebook such unaccepted consignments back to the district office/depot or other places.  In the event of such rebooked consignments the contractors shall charge the company return freight at the rates mentioned in the schedule, plus Octroi Terminal or entry charges.”  

5.      The complainant handed over some goods worth Rs.639233/- to the opponent-1 for transporting the same to Gandhidham to consignee M/s Yogeshwar Tyres. The details of the said goods sent through the opponent-1 are as under:

6.      As per the terms and conditions contained into the said agreement, and more specifically reproduced into this complaint, opponent-1 was under obligations and mandatory terms and conditions to act strictly and observe the same as far as the handling and transportation of the said goods concerned given by the complainant company to the opponent-1. It was binding duty and obligation upon the opponent-1 to hand over the said goods as per the procedure laid down into the said agreement, and omission therefrom, will result into the breach of the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The opponent-1 and opponent-2 acted negligently and carelessly and handed over the said goods to the consignee M/s Yogeshwar Tyres at Gandhidham without properly receiving the lorry receipt duly discharged by the bank, and the complainant company sustained loss and has to incur, never expenses and loss of interest as well as profits on the said goods. The opponent -2 who also acted as agent of the opponent-1 into transportation of the said goods, and was also a part of the entire process of transportation of the said goods. So, the opponent-2 had also played vital role in mishandling the said goods. The complainant lodged a claim bill before the opponent-1 being no.17/2000 dated 26.04.2000 claiming Rs.639233/-.  The opponent-1 did not pay any attention to the said claim bill, so, the complainant demanded the said amount of claim by its letter dated 29.04.2000. The cause of action had arisen on 26.04.2000 when the complainant filed claim bill before the opponent-1 and demanded payment of the claim bill on 29.04.2000. So, the complaint is not barred by the limitation as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and within limitation of two years.

7.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for appellant and examined the record. So far as the objection of the State Commission relating to joinder of the causes of action is concerned, Supreme Court in Brigade Enterprises Limited vs Anil Kumar Virmani, (2022) 4 SCC 138 held that joinder of the causes of action is permissible under Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission is contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court. 

8.      So far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, relevant part of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is quoted below:-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

9.      In the present case, all the opposite parties reside within the territorial jurisdiction of State Commission, Gujarat. Therefore, the complaint before the State Commission, Gujarat was maintainable.  Dismissal of the Complaint on preliminary issues was illegal. 

ORDER

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the State Commission dated 11.05.2012 passed in CC/93/2000 is set aside. Matter is remanded to State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad who shall restore the same to its original number and shall proceed to decide on merit in accordance with law. The appellant may appear before State Commission on 02.09.2022. Thereafter, State Commission will fix a date in accordance with its convenience.