PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.06 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. C-675/93, Mr. Niranjan Lal Gupta as Director of the Opposite Party, M/s. Caravan Roadways ..2.. Ltd. has filed the present appeal. The complaint was filed in the State Commission seeking compensation of Rs.15 lakh towards the loss occasioned to the complainant, M/s. K.C. Textiles Ltd. due to damage to a spinning machine costing Rs.47 lakh which was handed over to the opposite party for transportation from Mumbai to Jind, Haryana. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party and one of the objections taken was no cause of action had arisen against the opposite party, viz, Caravan Roadways Ltd. because it was a registered limited company and it had not carried the goods of the complainant from Mumbai to Jind. Rather, it was explained that the goods were carried by a different legal entity known as Caravan Roadways which was the sole proprietorship concern of Niranjan Lal Gupta. It was, however, not disputed that Mr. Niranjan Lal Gupta was also one of the Directors of Caravan Roadways Ltd. based in Mumbai. The State Commission has dealt with the said objection of the opposite party in para 10 of the impugned order in the following manner :- ..3.. “10. As regards the objection that no cause of action is available against the respondent Caravan Roadways Ltd. on the premise that it is a registered limited company whereas the goods were carried by Caravan Roadways which is a partnership firm, the OP had in their written statement stated that the complainant had booked a consignment to Jind against GR Note 786 and 787 both dated 30.04.94 with the OP in each GR the name of respondent-OP is mentioned. Now to say that Caravan Roadways is a different entity than Caravan Roadways Limited is a second thought and the version that it was Caravan Roadways who had accepted the consignment is falsified by its own stand. However, at the same time Mr. Niranjan Lal Gupta is shown as Director of M/s. Caravan Roadways Limited as well as of M/s. Caravan Roadways. Merely because of a word ‘Limited’ was added in the name of Caravan Roadways in the complaint against the name of the OP cannot allow the OP to take the plea that it was not its concern who had accepted the consignment. Had it been so there was no occasion for the OP to admit having accepted the consignment particularly in view of the fact that OP alone was impleaded as party and not Caravan Roadways. Had Caravan Roadways accepted the consignment against consideration nothing prevented the OP from denying having received the consignment. “ 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order on the ground that it is legally unsustainable being not in consonance with the provisions of law or any known principle of fixing ..4.. liability for a wrong committee by a party. We find force in this contention because a mere perusal of the goods receipt placed at Annexure-1 on the file would show that the said receipt has been issued by Caravan Roadways having its head office in Mumbai. The opposite party had also filed its Memorandum and Article of Association, Certificates of Registration and Commencement of Business issued by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal certifying that the Caravan Roadways Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and was entitled to commence its business. From this it is clear that the Caravan Roadways Ltd. which was arrayed as opposite party in the case is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is a different legal entity than the Caravan Roadways with whom the complainant had booked the consignment for carriage. We have no reason to disbelieve the averment of the appellant that the Caravan Roadways is a sole proprietorship concern. This would clearly show ..5.. that the complaint filed before the State Commission was bad for non-joinder as well as mis-joinder of necessary party because the carrier, Caravan Roadways which had actually received the machine for carriage from Mumbai to Jind was not impleaded as a opposite party in the complaint. Mere incidence that Niranjan Lal Gupta sole proprietor of Caravan Roadways is one of the Directors of the Caravan Roadways Ltd. is not sufficient to enfasten him with the liability. In our view, the impugned order has resulted into mis-carriage of justice because the State Commission has gravely erred in fastening the personal liability on Niranjan Lal Gupta. Yet, another aspect is about the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi State Commission to entertain the complaint because the goods were handed over for carriage to Caravan Roadways at Mumbai for their transportation to Jind, Haryana and the loss, if any that can be said to have been suffered by the complainant will be at Jind where the consignment was delivered allegedly in damaged condition and, therefore, no part of the cause of action can be said to have arisen in Delhi. ..6.. 3. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. No orders as to costs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendecy of the appeal and under the order of this Commission, appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the State Commission. In view of the position that the appeal has been allowed and the impugned order has been set aside, we direct the State Commission to refund the said amount to the appellant along with interest, if any, accrued thereon.