Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is a complaint filed by Vinay Cargo Movers against M/s.Ramdev Cargo Carriers and its Proprietor Shri Punshibhai Ladhubhai Lodhaya.
(2) According to Complainant it is carrying on business of road transportation. The Opponent nos. 1 and 2 are truck suppliers and owner of Truck No.GJ-TT-I-1-5001. According to Complainant it booked consignment of 400 packages HDPE Relene valued at `4,73,750/- entrusted to them by Reliance Industries Ltd., under its Goods Consignment Note No.112680 dated 26.09.1997 ex-Hazira (Gujarat) for delivery to M/s.Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Murbad, District Thane. According to Complainant subject consignment was loaded in the above referred truck supplied and owned by the Opponents in good order and condition as per Complainant’s Trip Sheet No.62094 dated 26.09.1997. They had paid `1,000/- as charges for hiring the said lorry belonging to Complainant vide Voucher No.260902 dated 29.09.1997. According to Complainant Opponent’s driver failed to deliver consignment to the Consignee valued at `4,73,750/-to M/s.Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., at Murbad, District Thane. The Opponent in their police complaint No.116/97 lodged F.I.R. with Ichapur Police Station, Surat City and confirmed that their driver had sold material entrusted for transportation. The Complainant pleaded that he had sent notice through his Advocate dated 29.10.1997 and called upon Opponent to reimburse the loss caused to them due to negligence and wrongful act of the Driver resulting in deficiency in service on their part. The Opponent sent reply on 08.11.1997 and dishonestly denied their liability saying that consignment was booked at Owner’s risk and falsely implicated the Complainant’s staff whereas in the police complaint lodged by Opponent they had clearly admitted that their Driver had sold material for his own benefit. Complainant refuted by sending reply again to Opponent through their Advocate on 08.11.1997. According to Complainant Consignee M/s.Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. debited `4,73,750/- from the Complainant’s bill as per Debit Note dated 05.01.1998. Complainant pleaded that they had duly lodged their claim with the Opponent by notice dated 29.10.1997. They pleaded that they are consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and non-delivery of the consignment was caused due to wrongful act of the Opponent’s driver and therefore, there is absolute obligation imposed on the Opponent being owner of the truck to take all necessary steps to reach consignment safely. Their liability is absolute in terms of section 8 and 9 of the Carriers Act and non-delivery of consignment makes Opponent liable for reimbursement of the loss sustained by the Complainant. The Complainant therefore prayed that Opponent Nos.1 and 2 should be ordered to pay to the Complainant `4,73,750/- with interest @18% per annum from 05.01.1998 till realization of the entire amount and Opponent should be directed to pay `30,000/- by way of compensation and `5,000/- towards costs of the proceeding.
(3) Opponent No.1 filed written version and contested the complaint. According to Opponent the complaint as filed by the Complainant is absolutely false, bogus, and baseless and it does not fall within the ambit of this Commission and there was no negligence on the part of the Opponents. It pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent. The Complainants themselves committed mistake by not taking insurance of their goods against the risk and no loss or damage whatsoever is caused to the Complainant. The Opponent pleaded that the complaint is required to be dismissed in as much as the Complainants are not having relationship of principal and Consumer with the Opponent. Just merely because debit note is raised by third party - M/s.Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. ipso-facto the Complainants are not entitled to claim amount of debit note against the Opponent. According to Opponent the real fact is that just prior of using the truck No.GJ-TT-I-1-5001 earlier incident of theft had taken place for the truck no.GJ-I-X-7887 on 22.09.1997 when Opponent’s first truck no.GJ-I-X-7887 was sent to Reliance Industries Ltd. at Hajira, Surat on behalf of the Complainant abovenamed to make delivery of goods to Nashik and this Opponent received the complaint of non-delivery of goods. Hence, Opponent made thorough search and ultimately the empty truck was traced out on 25.09.1997 at Talasari, District Thane and upon receipt of the phone call from Talasari Police Station, this Opponent learnt about the fact of theft. The Opponent also learnt that the Complainants themselves filed police complaint through their Manager – Madhusudanbhai with Ichhapore Police Station on 29.9.1997. The Opponents were shocked of filing of F.I.R., therefore, immediately on phone Opponent informed Madhusudhabhai, Manager of Complainant and Mr.Hitendrabhai Dharamsingh, the owner of Complainant not to use any of the truck of Opponent for transportation of goods from Hajira, Surat to Nashik. In spite of the said instructions the Complainant at their own risk had used second truck belonging to Opponent and therefore, there was gross carelessness and negligence on the part of the Complainants themselves and as such Opponent is not liable for the overt act committed by the Complainant and on this count the Opponents pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with costs. The Opponent further pleaded that the Complainant had not come with clean hands and Complainant had suppressed material facts from this commission. Complainant had suppressed the fact that for the previous truck bearing Truck No.GJ-I-TT-7787 said Mr.Madhusudan Gopinath Nair, the Manager of the Complainant himself had filed police complaint against this Opponent and against the driver of the truck though he was knowing Opponent Chetanbhai Lalka and Hitesh Shah were both innocent and were not involved in the crime but to extract money of the goods and to put pressure on them the Complainant had filed police complaint in Ichhapur Police Station which sufficiently would show that relationship between them was spoiled. In spite of the said fact the Complainant had used second truck bearing no.GJ-I-TT-5001 for transportation of goods without knowledge and consent of the Opponent and thereby exceeded their limit and therefore, the Opponent is not liable for any breach of understanding committed by the Complainant. The Opponent had through authorized officer – Punshibhai lodged complaint dated 01.10.1997, which clearly speaks that Complainant had forcibly implicated Officers of Opponent knowing fully well that Opponent’s Officers were not involved in the crime committed by others. Opponent further pleaded that Complainant even attempted to get arrested Opponent’s officer like Mr.Hitesh Shah and Mr.Lalka so that amount of goods could be extorted as Complainant was aware that the goods were not insured and secondly the driver of the said truck was not traceable. Therefore, instead of going to Civil Court, Complainant adopted short cut of Goondaism through Ichhapore Police Station. But, Complainant could not succeed as the Hon’ble Court had granted anticipatory bail to the Officers of the first Opponent.
(4) Opponents pleaded that second Opponent was neither Proprietor nor partner in Opposite Party’s business. Opponent pleaded that through the hands of Ichhapur Police Station the Complainant had recovered the goods of the first truck without obtaining no objection from the Opponent. The Opponent pleaded that the Complainants had issued letter dated 29.10.1997 and demanded `8,47,500/- from the Opponent which were never due and payable by the Complainant to anybody. Raising of Debit Note dated 05.01.1998 cannot entitle Complainant to file consumer complaint unless in terms of debit note the Complainant actually paid amount of `8,47,500/- to M/s.Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Even otherwise Opponent pleaded that the complaint or claim can be lodged with the opponent only within six months from 05.01.1998 and as there was no such complaint lodged for the claim there is no question of liability of first Opponent and no cause of action has arisen to the complaint against Opponent No.1 and therefore, the complaint of the Complainant is totally bad in law, misconceived and not maintainable in law. Opponent further pleaded that in fact Opponent is entitled to claim outstanding amount of `90,000/- for the freight charges together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the complainant. Opponent pleaded that both of them are governed by Indian Carrier Act, 1865 and before filing the complaint it must be established that Complainant had suffered any loss or damage. The transaction between the Complainant and First Opponent being commercial transaction i.e. between the Contractor and Sub-Contractor, the Complainant cannot file consumer complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opponent No.1 pleaded that there was no agreement between the Complainant and Opponent No.1 about transportation of goods from Hazira, Surat to Thane. The Complainant appears to have entered into a contract with the driver directly and he had entered into the contract with the said driver as per exhibit C and D and Complainant had not taken any action against the driver of the said truck as per separate terms entered into between the Complainant and the driver of Opponent herein. The Opponent pleaded that cause of action had arisen to the Complainant on 05.01.1998 but no notice under section 10 of Indian Contract Act was given to the Opponent. On 05.01.1998 said complaint was not tenable and deserves to be dismissed on this count also. Opponent also pleaded that simple meaning of the word ‘Debit Note’ would not mean that liability has been passed on. The debit note is always subject to proof and the same is required to be proved under the Indian Evidence Act by Complainant. For all these reasons the Opponent No.1 pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
(5) The Opponent No.2 has also filed written version and pleaded that he was not concerned with the Opponent No.1. He was neither proprietor nor partner of Opponent No.1. He was simply authorized to file complaint in appropriate Court or Police Station and therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted along with Opponent No.1 – Ramdev Cargo Carriers.
(6) Mr.Hitendra Dharamshi, partner of M/s.Vinay Cargo Movers, Complainant herein filed Rejoinder and stated that said Truck No.GJ-TT-I-1-5001 belonged to Opponent No.1 as per R.T.O. Certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer, Ahmedabad. He also stated that Opponent No.1 is liable as such transporter, bailee and trustee to the owner of goods to pay `4,73,750/- as Opponent’s driver has committed criminal act.
(7) We heard submissions of Ms.Kalyani Parmar, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr.Vijay Waghela, Advocate for the Opponent.
(8) We are finding that the Complainant itself is a Transporter. It had taken consignment from Reliance Industries Ltd. It had undertaken to transport goods from Hajira, Surat to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., M.I.D.C., Murbad, District Thane. The consignment was HDPE Relene E52009 having quantity of 10 MT. They in turn had taken help of Opponent No.2’s driver Sagir Khan on 26/09/1997, loaded the truck with the consignment at Hajira and sent it to Murbad, District Thane to be delivered at Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Murbad, District Thane. On the transporter’s bill Consignor was Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and consignee was also Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. One Sagir Khan was the truck driver of truck No.GJ-TT-I-1-5001. It was loaded in the truck belonging to the Opponent on 26.09.1997. It was to be delivered at Murbad but Complainant Company had taken truck not from Ramdev Cargo Carriers but directly from Sagir Khan, because Sagir Khan’s name was found on the PE Invoice prepared by Reliance Industries Ltd., where Consignor and Consignee both are Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. It was to be at Owner’s risk and owner was consignor Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant had issued Trip Sheet Agreement dated 26.09.1997 mentioning driver’s name as Sagir Kha and he has been entrusted 10 M.T. HDPE RELENE E52009. It was to be carried out by the said driver to Murbad and handed over to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Murbad. Bill was to be paid at Mumbai. Now from this it appears that Sagir Khan was given amount of `1,000/- only. According to Opponent – truck engaged by Vinay Cargo Movers bearing No.GJ-I-X-7887 was loaded on 22.09.1997 and it had not reached to Nashik to the Consignee for which Complainant had lodged F.I.R. and said truck was traced out on 25.09.1997 at Talasari, Gujarat and truck was without goods. Complainants had themselves lodged an F.I.R. through their Manager Madhusudanbhai with Ichchapur Police Station on 29.09.1997. So, first truck taken by Sagir Khan on 22.09.1997 was not traced and it was lying unattended at Talasari for which Complainant had lodged F.I.R. in Ichchapur Police Station. When after losing the first truck and the goods Opponent had specifically asked Vinay Cargo Movers, the Complainant herein not to engage trucks of his Company for transportation by them since driver of the one truck No.GJ-I-X-7887 taken by Sagir Bhai was already missing but despite this direction it is the contention of the Opponent that Vinay Cargo Movers, the Complainant herein deliberately engaged another truck with the help of Mr.Sagir Bhai because in the second consignment sent on 26.09.1997 Mr.Sagir Khan was given consignment in truck No.GJ-TT-I-1-5001. This act of Complainant Company is itself appearing to be doubtful because first truck taken by Complainant Company for sending goods to Nashik had been misappropriated by Sagir Bhai on 22.09.1997. Complainant had lodged F.I.R. in respect of said missing of the truck on 29.09.1997. The Opponent and its Partner were required to apply for an anticipatory bail because one of the partners was made accused in the said F.I.R. by the Complainant and therefore, they had informed the Complainant not to employ another truck belonging to them for any goods to be carried from Reliance Industries Ltd., Hazira (Gujarat) to anywhere. Despite this direction given, Vinay Cargo Movers procured another truck of Ramdev Cargo Carriers, Opponent herein and Shri Sagir Bhai who was missing from the first truck and allegedly gave goods for transportation for being taken to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Murbad, District, Thane, bearing truck No.GJ-TT-I-1-5001, when Trip Sheet agreement clearly mentioned that “to be billed at Mumbai”, they allegedly gave `1,000/- to the truck driver despite the clear-cut direction given to the Vinay Cargo Movers that not to employ truck of Ramdev Cargo Carriers. So whole of the transaction is appearing to be fishy and second truck also went on missing for which ultimately the Opponent was required to file F.I.R. in Ichchapur Police Station, District Surat. On the second truck GJ-TT-I-1-5001 Abdul Kayum was the truck driver who was in custody of said truck against whom Opponent filed admittedly F.I.R. when Opponent was told by Complainant that their truck was missing.
(9) When consignment note is showing that Consignor is the Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., the Consignor is also the same. The goods must be held to be carried or transported by Complainant at Owner’s risk. So, risk was undertaken by Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., when they employed services of Vinay Cargo Movers. M/s.Vinay Cargo Movers in their complaint clearly mentioned that they had given Lorry hire charges to the driver of the truck No.GJ-TT-I-1-5001 on 26.09.1997 vide voucher No.260902. When Vinay Cargo Movers had given simply lorry charges, Opponent – Ramdev Cargo Carriers cannot be said to be transporter and they are not covered by Carriers Act. It would necessarily mean that Carriers – Vinay Cargo Movers employs or hires only truck and driver by paying hire charges to the driver not even to Ramdev Cargo Carriers and they had done so despite the fact that even according to Complainant driver of the truck no. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 was Abdul Kayum and not Sagir Khan in whose name trip sheet Receipt No.62094 on 26.09.1997 was procured by Vinay Cargo Movers by paying `1,000/- to Sagir Khan. Sagir Khan went missing from 22.09.1997 whereas said Sagir Khan was alleged to have been given consignment as per consignment note issued by Reliance Industries Ltd. for carrying HDPE Relene 10 MT from Hazira, District Surat to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Murbad, District Thane. On 26.09.1997 some person was given some consignment for another truck GJ-TT-I-1-5001. Its driver admittedly was Abdul Kayum against whom Ramdev Cargo Carriers Opponent had filed F.I.R. on 29.09.1997 in Ichchapur Police Station. In the F.I.R. itself lodged on behalf of Ramdev Cargo Carriers by Punshibhai Ladhubhai Lodaya, it has been mentioned that their first Truck No.GJ-I-X-7887 sent from Reliance Industries Ltd., Hazira, District Surat, through Vinay Cargo Movers had not reached the party at Nashik. They had received telephone call from Talasari Police Station and they told that truck was found in unclaimed condition. They found that driver of the said truck – Sagir Khan was missing and had sold away goods collected from Reliance Industries Ltd. through Madhusoodan Gopinath Nair, Manager of Vinay Cargo Movers who had lodged complaint against him in Ichchapur Police Station that driver had misappropriated the goods. They informed Hitendra Naranji Dharamsinh, the partner of Vinay Cargo Movers residing in Mumbai and Madhusudan Gopinath Nair, the Manager at Surat, not to use any of the truck of Opponent. Therefore since driver of the previous truck had gone missing but on their own, Vinay Cargo Movers, in spite of direction not to engage their truck had taken truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 for loading goods from Hazira, District Surat to transport goods to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Murbad, District Thane, which showed that it was taken through driver, Sagir khan who had gone missing. All these facts are showing that Complainant was at fault in procuring second truck belonging to the Opponent for transportation of Reliance Industrial goods from Hazira to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Murbad, District Thane by engaging services of Sagir Khan, but, in fact the said truck bearing No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 was belonging to the Opponent No.1, which was in the care and custody of driver Abdul Kayum. In this case Complainant was the transport company, they were entrusted to take goods from Reliance Industries Ltd., Hazira Plant to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., at Murbad, District Thane. They took services of truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 belonging to Ramdev Cargo Carriers but truck driver surprisingly was shown as Sagir Khan, when in fact according to Opponent and from F.I.R. in Ichchapur Police Sation, on 01.10.1997 the driver was Abdul Kayum and not Sagir Khan. So, whole transaction of transportation of goods of Vinay Cargo Movers through Truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 is appearing to be fishy and doubtful and it was got done from Sagir Khan when in fact said truck was in the custody of Abdul Kayum, the Driver of Ramdev Cargo Carriers, the Opponent herein.
(10) We also find that the goods were carried by Sagir Khan at Owner’s risk when Consignor and Consignee are the same, the lorry driver or its owner is not responsible, but it is the Consignor who is responsible and who covers the risk if during transit or transportation goods go missing or damaged by any untoward incident.
(11) It was rightly contended by Advocate Mr.Waghela for the Opponent that they had not been paid bill for the truck hired by the Complainant firm. When bill was payable at Mumbai it was surprising that trip sheet agreement was recorded by Vinay Cargo Movers by taking signature of Sagir Khan in respect of Truck No. bearing No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 mentioned therein that they had paid `1,000/- to the driver. So everything is appearing to be fishy and this was done contrary to the directions given by Opponent, not to engage Ramdev Cargo Carriers’ trucks for transportation of goods from – Hazira plant to anywhere since according to Complainant their first driver – Sagir Khan had misappropriated the goods and left the truck unattended near Talasari. What is pertinent to note is the fact that in the course of arguments we were told by Complainant that first truck consignment was ultimately recovered and it was given back to Reliance Industries Ltd. We do not know what had happened to second consignment sent through Truck bearing No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001, whether the goods were traced or not. In this view of the matter this case appears to be very suspicious. According to complainant driver of the second truck GJ-TT-I-1-5001 was Abdul Kayum, when this is so, how the Truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 was engaged by Complainant firm on 26.09.1997 through driver Sagir Khan. So vary basis or foundation of the case of Complainant is shattered because now Complainant’s Counsel also admitted in answer to our queries that driver of the second truck owned by Ramdev Cargo Carriers was Abdul Kayum and driver of the first truck was Sagir Khan and Ramdev Cargo Carriers had lodged F.I.R. on 01.10.1997 against Abdul Kayum and not Sagir Khan. If at all, it is the case of the Complainant that Sagir Khan was given goods in truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 they should have lodged F.I.R. against said Sagir Khan or Abdul Kayum as per trip sheet agreement dated 26.09.1997. They had not lodged any such F.I.R. against Sagir Khan, so Sagir Khan is the person who owes more allegiance to the Complainant than to his employer Ramdev Cargo Carriers, Opponent herein.
(12) Besides this major lacuna, we are finding in this case that there are other circumstances which show that the Complainant had not given credit note for the amount of `4,73,750/- to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. If they were transporter and if the consignment could not reach to Murbad, District Thane to the consignee, they should have paid amount of `4,73,750/- by sending credit note to that effect since they claimed that they had received debit note for the said amount from Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. No such credit note was produced before us to show that the amount has been paid by the Consignee of the said consignment.
(13) Mr.Waghela, Advocate for the Opponent further submitted that Complainant was not consignee, so they cannot be permitted to proceed against Ramdev Cargo Carriers, Opponent herein. It is only Consignor who can proceed against Opponent if Opponent’s truck driver had misappropriated the goods belonging to the Consignor. In the instant case Consignor was Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd.or Reliance Industries Ltd., on their behalf, surely, the complainant was not the consignor. Mr.Waghela, Advocate for the Opponent further submitted that since truck was taken by them for carriage of goods, for goods safety, the Complainant firm ought to have taken insurance cover which they had not taken and now they were trying to lay hands on them only through lorry receipt when goods were carried at Owner’s risk. In the instant case he submitted that goods were carried by Consignor at their own risk because Consignor and Consignee both are the same.
(14) For all these reasons, we are of the view that the case of the Complainant is appearing to be false and not reliable. Complainant had sent registered letter dated 29.10.1997 through Advocate to Opponent – Ramdev Cargo Carriers wherein complainant mentioned that first truck with consignment had gone missing with the consignment worth `3,73,750/- which was stolen by the driver of the Opponent and said truck was lying unattended. That truck was meant to take consignment to Pune as well as Nashik, that was the first truck belonging to the Opponent. Then second truck was having 400 boxes of HDPE Relene valued at `4,73,750/- vide LR. No.112680 dated 26.09.1997 which was to be delivered to the Consignee Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., but the said vehicle driver and cleaner had gone missing and the goods were not delivered to the Consignee till date and therefore, they demanded amount of `8,47,500/- from the Opponent by sending notice. Ramdev Cargo Carriers sent reply. After receiving reply from Ramdev Cargo Carriers dated 08.11.1997, again on 5th December, 1997 further registered letter was sent by the Complainant’s Advocate wherein they further claimed that Opponent should pay amount of `8,47,500/- to them for missing of goods from two trucks, but while filing complaint the Complainant nowhere explained why it was simply asking for value of consignment worth `4,73,750/- only and not for the amount of `8,47,500/-. This is again appearing to be suspicious, since Complainant had not given any explanation why they were restricting the claim to `4,73,750/- only. Furthermore, Complainant has produced on record that they had to pay the amount of consignment to the Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd., since the consignment meant for Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. had gone missing in transit sent through Truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001, but only one cheque for amount of `1,68,390/- appears to have been given to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. by the Complainant. It was dated 29.01.1998 when the Consignment was worth `4,73,750/-. Why the cheque of `1,68,390/- only was given is also not explained by the Counsel for the Complainant.
(15) What is pertinent to note is the fact that from the complaint it has been suppressed by the Complainant that the goods from first truck has been traced out and it has been handed over to the owner i.e. Reliance Industries Ltd. It is nowhere mentioned by the Complainant in the complaint. In the like manner we may hold that second consignment sent through Truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 might have been likewise recovered by Reliance Industries Ltd. with the help of police and other middleman we do not know.
(16) Counsel for the Opponent has brought to our notice the fact that one more party’s name is found on the consignment note prepared by Vinay Cargo Movers and name of the party mentioned is Aditya Polymers. What was the role of Aditya Polymers in this consignment is not clearly stated. From the letter addressed by Aditya Polymers dated 30.07.1998 to Reliance Industries Ltd., it has been mentioned that they will pay `2,00,000/- to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. out of `4,73,750/-. This is again making the whole transaction suspicious.
(17) In the totality of the circumstances, we are finding that the case of the complainant as presented is not reliable and we are not inclined to hold that Ramdev Cargo Carriers had agreed to transport the goods from Hazira to Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. at Murbad under any agreement. It appears that Vinay Cargo Movers, the Complainant herein had clandestinely taken services of Truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 belonging to the Opponent behind the back of Ramdev Cargo Carriers with the help of Sagir Khan, who had gone missing after he had been entrusted the first truck with consignment with the permission of Ramdev Cargo Carriers. When he had gone missing the second consignment through second truck belonging to Ramdev Cargo Carriers bearing Truck No. GJ-TT-I-1-5001 was sent despite the clear direction by the Opponent not to take their trucks for carrying Reliance Industries material from Hazira to anywhere. In the light of this express directions, Vinay Cargo Movers fraudulently took help of Sagir Khan who was missing at that time and probably loaded truck with consignment meant for Kupatha Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd.behind the back and against the express directions of Ramdev Cargo Carriers, Opponent herein and for these reasons we hold that Opponents are not liable to pay anything to the Complainant in this transaction. The complaint as such is appearing to be devoid of any substance and hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Complaint stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties according.
Pronounced on 24th November, 2011.
