REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2010 Prayer in this application is to recall / review the order dated 02.03.2010 passed in FA No. 405 of 2005. The ground put up in the review petition is that date of hearing was wrongfully noted by the counsel for the appellant and therefore, he could not appear at the time of hearing of the appeal. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that order sought to be reviewed / recalled should be recalled. The order is accordingly recalled. Now, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, we have heard the counsel for the parties on the appeal. It is pointed out that appellant Proprietor of Sri Meenakshi Transport having simply acted as broker for making a lorry available owned by S. Mathiyalagan cannot be said to have provided any service to the complainant, least he could be held liable for any acts of omission or commission committed by the owner or driver of the said lorry. Our attention has been invited to the Goods Haulage Contract which would clearly show that name of Meenakshi Transport appears in the coloumn roker name and addressand name of . Mathiyalaganis shown as owner of the lorry. Besides, it is pointed out that complainant respondent no.1 Savani Transport Limited were not the owners of the goods and owner of the goods, namely, K. Subba Rao has already filed a suit for recovery of undelivered consignment against Savani Transport Limited in the court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. Our attention has also been invited to specific stand taken by Savani Transport Limited as defendant in suit No. O.S.No.91/2004. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under : . am the petitioner herein and the 2nd defendant in the above suit. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of amount due to cost of the cotton, which it was missed duly transit. I have also filed written statement and clearly stated that the Sri Meenaksi Transport, represented by its proprietor E.Manohar, is carrying on business at No.8, East Bouleward Road, Trichirapalli 620 008 and residing at No.7/54, Bharathi Street, Ariyamangalam, Trichirapalli 620 010, who is the lorry broker introduced the alleged lorry No.TN 28 D 0279 it was on the instructions given by the plaintiff himself. 2. The said owner of the lorry TN 28 D 0279 S.Mathiyalagan, son of Sellamuthu, No.3/14, Aniyapuram Pudur Aniyapuram Post, Namakkal, who originally carried the consignment and set fire artificially to the consignment. Due to the criminal act caused out by the lorry owner the said Mathiyalagan was introduced by the broker T. Manoharan the consignee/owner of suit consignment regarding to the destination namely the Pannalal Madanial Tapadia, No.50. Somwarpeth, Malegan-423 203 Maharashtra State. After that, the incident was caused only due to the illegal act caused by the said persons Manoharan and Mathialagan. Hence the plaintiff not filing the impleadment petition to implead the said persons as necessary parties in the suit. The impleaded of the above mentioned persons is very essential and to establish the case very well and this defendant is filing this application to implead the said persons as the proper persons, who are the necessary parties to the petition and impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. If the persons are impleaded the truth will come out into the court. I have also mentioned the persons in the written statement and other proceedings also. The Xerox copy of the charge sheet is enclosed for kind perusal. Hence the above said persons more fully described hereunder have to be impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. As otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss and hardship 3. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.1 states that appellant was not merely a broker but was also a transport carrier by receiving transport charges of Rs.2600/- out of total freight charges of Rs.8600/-. Our attention has also been invited to a decision passed by this Commission in the case of Raju Vs. Savani Transport Limited & Anr. decided on 25.08.2005. In that case, though receipt of transport, namely, Divya Roadlines was produced but Goods Haulage Contract as has been filed in the present case does not appear to have been entered into or produced. Whatever the case may be, the plea of the appellant in regard to his liability under the said Haulage Contract must be answered in definitive terms. Although, the State Commission while dealing with the issue repelled the contention of the present application in regard to his non liability on the ground that he was simply a broker, but going by the material and the attenuating circumstances in which the consignment was entrusted to the complainant-respondent no.1, who in turn obtained the services of appellant and other person S. Mathiyalangan, this question needs to be answered in accordance with law. In view of this, we are of the view that matter should be reheard before the State Commission so far as above plea of the appellant is concerned. It is also pointed out said suit filed by K.Subba Rao in the court of Subordinate Judge was only for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,99,644.59 and not for Rs.7,94,539/- as was claimed by Savani Transport in its complaint. This aspect also needs consideration by the State Commission. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside only and in so far as it has held the appellant liable to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 12% from 27.09.1999 till payment. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18.04.2011 for receiving further directions in the matter.