KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.248/07 JUDGMENT DAED 19.5.2010 PRESENT SM.VALSALASARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Kerala Transport Company, Reptd. by its Zonal Manager, South Zonal Office, GCDA Commercial -- APPELLANT Complex, III Floor, Marine Drive, Ernakulam -682 031 Kerala. (By Adv.R.Narendran Nair) Vs. Kuttiyamma.Y. -- RESPONDENT W/0 Varghese Thomas, Thundagiparambil, Niranam North P.O, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta District. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER By the order dated 27.2.07 in OP.154/03 the CDRF, Pathanamthitta has directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40,950/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of the complaint till the date of the order and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of payment with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. The opposite parties are jointly and severely held liable for the payment. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the first opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the forum below. 2. The complainant’s case is that she had entrusted 39 numbers of domestic items with the opposite parties for transportation to her house at Thiruvalla on 18.5.03 by paying an amount of Rs.19,000/-.She has submitted before the forum that the articles were entrusted with the opposite parties consequent to her retirement from service from SKMM Hospital, Dholpur, Rajasthan and that the articles were entrusted in good condition. It is her case that when the goods were taken delivery from the appellants’ branch office at Thiruvalla, 13 items of goods were damaged beyond the stage of repairs. She has submitted that the said articles were purchased by her just before dispatch and that she had suffered a loss of 1,05,900/- due to the negligence of the opposite parties. As no action was taken to her notice dated 31.5.03 by the opposite parties, the complaint was filed paying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,900/- with 18 % interest from the date of complaint and also Rs.25,000/- as compensation apart from the cost of the proceedings. 3. The opposite parties filed a joint version wherein it was contended that they had no knowledge regarding the profession of the complainant or with regard to the condition of the goods entrusted to them. The very case of the opposite parties was that the complainant had booked not for a full load and it was only at the risk of the complainant that the goods were entrusted with the opposite parties. It was also denied that the goods included in the consignment were newly purchased and they submitted that there was no deficiency on their part as the complainant had taken delivery of the items without any protest. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents A1 to A10 on her side. 5. The Forum below had deputed a Commissioner to verify the condition of the articles and the report is marked as Ext.C1. The commissioner was examined as CW1. On the side of the opposite parties, the third opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 and B1(a) were marked. It is based on the evidence adduced from both sides that the forum below passed the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below is unsustainable on the ground that the Forum did not appreciate the evidence tendered by the opposite parties in its correct perspective. He has submitted before us that the complaint was a much belated one as the goods were entrusted on 18.5.03 and the complaint was filed only on 21.7.03. It is also the case of the appellant that the appellant was unaware of the nature of goods entrusted with them and the complainant did not disclose the condition of the articles at the time of booking. The very case of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the complainant had taken delivery of the goods at Thiruvalla without any objections, she is barred from filing a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has also argued before us that the documents produced as Exts.A2 to A9 were obtained for the purpose of the case and that the forum below ought not have believed the case of the complainant in toto. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the fact that the commissioner appointed was only an Advocate commissioner who had no expertise to verify and report the value, condition and required repair charges for the alleged damaged goods and submitted before us that the forum below ought not have relied on the commissioner’s report at all. Thus, he canvassed for the position that the appeal is to be allowed setting aside the order of the forum below. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below and argued before us that the appeal is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the respondent/complainant. He has submitted before us that the high hopes of the complainant for getting the newly purchased articles transported to her home at Thiruvalla from Rajasthan were devastated by the opposite parties by transporting the goods without due care and caution. He has also advanced the contention that the forum below ought to have allowed Rs.1,05,900/- itself instead of curtailing the amount even below the value assessed by the commissioner. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both parties that the complainant had entrusted a consignment containing 39 items of household articles with the opposite parties on 18.5.03 to be delivered at Thiruvalla. It is also seen that a sum of Rs.19000/- was paid by the complainant towards transportation charges at the appellant’s office at Rajasthan. The case of the complaint is that when she received the articles at Thiruvalla 13 items out of 39 items were damaged beyond the stage of repairs and the value of the articles put together would be Rs.1,05,900/-. The complainant alleges that the articles were damaged due to the loading, unloading and reloading of goods by the opposite parties in the intervening stations at Bangalore and Ernakulam. The appellant would say that the complainant had booked only a partial load and not a full load and if it was a full load there would not have been any chance of unloading or reloading. The case put forward by the appellant is that the complainant had taken delivery of the items at Thiruvalla without any objection and thus the complainant is barred from making a complaint regarding the damage to the goods. On an entire appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the contention of the appellant is that if the articles were entrusted as a full load, they could have delivered the items without any damage. This contention of the appellant is not acceptable as at the time when the complainant had booked the items, the opposite parties did not give such an information to the complainant. More over, when a party entrusts goods with the carrier, it is the bounden duty of the carrier to deliver the goods in proper condition to the consignee. It is also seen that the commissioner had prepared a detailed report regarding the amount required for repairs and also reported the items that could not be repaired at all. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the commissioner was not an expert, we find that an Advocate commissioner is able to prepare an estimate for the repairs and assess the quantum of damage caused to the pertaining to the complaint. More over, the bills produced by the complainant as Ext.A2 to A9 would show that the items were purchased just near the date of transportation. We do not think that all those bills could be manipulated for the purpose of the case. It is also to be seen that though the commissioner had assessed the loss to be more than Rs.50,000/- the forum below had allowed only 40,950/- after due verification. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the calculations made by the forum below in quantifying the amount of loss sustained by the complainant. 10. The forum below had also awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- over and above the award of interest at 12% per annum for the sum of Rs.40,950/-. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently attacked this part of the order contending that when interest was awarded it was not necessary for the forum to award compensation also. We find some force in the argument of the learned counsel in this aspect. It is found that the forum below had awarded reasonable rate of interest on the amount of loss assessed and in such a situation the award of compensation is unwarranted. We are inclined to set aside the award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- over and above the interest to be paid by the opposite parties. However the cost awarded is only reasonable and the same is sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification as indicated above. Thereby, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,950/- with 12% interest from the date of the complaint till the date of the order and thereafter at 6% per annum for the whole amount till the date of payment. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.1500/- awarded as costs by the Forum below. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER VALSALASARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER | 
