12/03/2015 - Inspite of fixing this case, for ex parte hearing, R-2 did not appear on 23.2.2015, or even today.

2.       Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, R-1 and R-3. The appellants are the owners of the vehicle in question. R-1 is the complainant. R-2 is the transporter. R-3 is driver of the vehicle in question.

3.       The present complaint was filed alleging that the Iron rods worth Rs. 1,64,502/- was sent by the complainant through transporter/ owner- driver of the vehicle but the consignment did not reach at the destination. On demand the transporter/ owners - driver refused to compensate the complaint, due to which he suffered heavy loss.

4.       The O.Ps/ transporter/ owners/ driver contested the case, interalia on the ground that the goods in question were looted during transit by the miscreants and therefore they were not liable to pay the value of the goods. It was further contended that the complainant did not insure the goods.

5.       The learned District Forum has awarded the said amount along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost payable by O.P.No.2 and 3 / appellants / owners of the vehicle.

6.       Mr. Asfaque Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the owners/ appellants submitted that the goods were looted by the miscreants, about which F.I.R. was lodged; in which police submitted chargesheet against accused persons. He further submitted that had the complainant insured the goods, he might not have suffered loss.

7.       He relied on the  judgement reported in II ( 2004) CPJ 242 (MP State Forum)  Alok Khanna Vs M/s Diamond Transport of India  and II (2004)  CPJ 570  (Tamil Nadu Forum) Kamans Roadways  Vs G. Yashwant & Anr .

8.       On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ R-1 also relied on the said judgement of Alok Khanna (supra).

9.       The aforesaid judgements are not applicable in the present case in as much as it was found in the case of Alok Khanna that as per the booking receipts/ bilties issued by the transporter, there was an undertaking to carry the goods to the destination and deliver the same to the consignee. In the case of Kamans Roadways, the goods were entrusted to the transport company.

          But in the present case, from the booking receipt/ bilti issued by the transporter, it appears that certain terms and conditions were mentioned in the back of it. Cl. No. 1 was that after the goods are loaded on the vehicle, the driver and owners of the vehicle will be responsible. In Cl. 5 it was mentioned that the goods should be sent after ensuring it.

10.     Mr. Singh submitted that if in view of said Cl.1 the transport company is not liable, then the owner and driver of the truck is liable. But in the present case in the case of loot/ dacoity of the goods, during transmit, the driver /owners cannot be held responsible. It is the wisdom of the complainant that he did not get the goods insured due to which he had to suffer the loss.

11.     After hearing the parties at length and considering the materials and the judgements placed before us, we set aside the impugned judgement and allow the appeal with the observations made hereinabove.

           Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                       Ranchi,

          Dated : 12-03-2015