KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 461/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 15.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 167/2013 of CDRF, Kannur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Manager, Kerala Transport Company, Fleet Owners and Cargo Movers, 1954/11-44, Bazar Bakarwana, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Amritsar-143 006, Punjab.

                                      (By Advs. Shyam Padman & S. Reghukumar)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. C. Mohanan, Rayaroth Vadakkekkarammal, Kuttiyattoor, Post Mayil (via), Kannur-607 602.

2. The Manager, Bharath Goods Transport Company Fleet Owners Transport and Contractors, Jammu Road, Opp: Jagat Floor Mill, Malikpur Chowk, Sarna Bathankot, Punjab.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (District Forum for short) in C.C. No. 167/2013.  The 1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 1^st opposite party.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and against that Order the appellant has filed this appeal. 

2.  The gist of the complaint is that:

The complainant is a Defence Service person.  In the year 2012, when he was working at Punjab, he approached the 1^st opposite party for transportation of certain household goods to his native place in Kerala.  The 1^st opposite party agreed to transport his consignment containing a dining table with six chairs, household articles packed in 3 gunny bags and a box of utensils which altogether cost Rs. 25,000/-.  So on 26.04.2012 complainant booked the consignment at Pathankot, Punjab with 1^st opposite party at their office.  The complainant paid the charges also to the 1^st opposite party for the said purpose.  But the consignment did not reach the destination and through a letter from the 2^nd opposite party the complainant was informed that the truck in which the consignment was lodged had caught fire at Asind Taluk near Bhilwara and the consignment of the complainant also was destroyed in fire.  Though the complainant approached the opposite party for refund of the loss and freight charges, it was in vain.  Due to the non-delivery of goods the complainant has suffered loss and mental agony and the opposite party having accepted the responsibility of transportation of the consignment and safe delivery of goods failed to deliver the same.  All the articles lost were being used by the complainant’s family with mental attachments.  There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

3.  The 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte since he refused to accept the summons and failed to appear before the District Forum.  The 2^nd opposite party filed their version contending that they have no direct contact with the complainant and they have not received any list of articles contained in the consignment handed over to them by the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the claim of the complainant about the value of articles is quite imaginary only.  The loss of the articles was due to an event totally beyond the control of the opposite party.  It was a clear accident.  There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The opposite party questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum in the matter. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs, it was contended. 

4.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked from his side.  The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence before the District Forum. 

5.  In this case the opposite party had raised the contention that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum because of lack of territorial jurisdiction. But the District Forum found that the complainant entrusted the consignment to the 1^st opposite party for delivery of the same in his native place in Kannur District which is within the jurisdiction of the Forum. Apart from that there is a branch office of the opposite party situated in Kannur District.  Hence the District Forum found that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 

6.  The finding of the District Forum is that the articles entrusted by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party were handed over to the 2^nd opposite party for delivery at the native place of the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party admitted the same in his version.  Due to an accident they could not deliver the goods to the complainant.  It was the duty of the opposite party to deliver the goods.   For that they have received charges also from the complainant.  Exts. A2 and A3 clearly mentioned about the role of the 2^nd opposite party in connection with this case.  They cannot abstain from the duty and liability cast upon them.  Non-delivery of goods or its value to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  The District forum found that the complainant was entitled for appropriate relief also.  According to PW1, the value of goods entrusted as per his assessment was Rs. 25,000/- for which he relied the description and number of articles also.  Apart from that there is no contra evidence from the side of opposite parties.  Hence the District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to recover the value of goods amounting to Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite parties and also to get Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs of the proceedings.

7.  The District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- the value of goods, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the complainant.  Against the impugned order the 2^nd opposite party has filed this appeal. 

8.  In this appeal the 1^st and 2^nd respondents did not appear. 

9.  The main contention raised by the appellant is that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  That contention is not maintainable.  Another contention raised by the appellant is that the District Forum ought to have held that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Insurer of the vehicle and finance company are necessary parties.  But we find that there is no contract between the insurance company and the complainant.  The appellant/2^nd opposite party also stated that the complainant has not produced any document to establish that the value of articles booked would fetch a value of Rs. 25,000/-.

10.  We have verified all the documents and heard the arguments of the appellant in detail.  The complainant made all correspondence with the 2^nd opposite party/appellant regarding the loss of the articles.  From these communications we find that the 2^nd opposite party/appellant has the responsibility to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party also cannot evade from the liability.  The 1^st opposite party entrusted the duty to the 2^nd opposite party to transfer the articles to the complainant.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party has the liability to compensate the complainant along with the 1^st opposite party. 

11.  The finding of the District Forum in C.C. No. 167/2013 is correct and reasonable. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  We confirm the order passed by the District Forum, Kannur in C.C. No. 167/2013 as sustainable.   There is no need to alter the findings of the District Forum.  No order as to costs.    

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

jb                                                                                               BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER