Tripura

West Tripura

CC/38/2015

Smt Sampa Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/S Calcutta Agartala Roadways & 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

Miss. B.Sur, Mr.S.Paul, Mr.K.Datta.

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 38 of 2015

Smt. Sampa Paul,
Proprietor of Ram Krishna Law House,
54 Central Road, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.        ...........Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

1. The Manager,
M/S Calcutta Agartala Roadways,
Palace Compound(West),
Colonel Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura,

2. The Manager,
M/S Calcutta Agartala Roadways,
25, Rajani Gupta Row,
Kolkata-799009.

3. The Proprietor,
Kamal Law House,
8/2, Kiran Sankar Roy Road,
Kokata-700001.            ............Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         : Sri Debasish Lskar,
                  Sri Subhajit Paul,
                  Advocates. 
                           
For the Opposite parties    :  None Appeared. 
                

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   16.09.15

J U D G M E N T     

        This is complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Smt. Sampa Paul, 54, Central Road, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely the Manager M/S Calcutta Agartala Roadways, Palace Compound, Agartala, West Tripura and 2 others alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant is the proprietor of Ram Krishna Law House carrying on her business at Central Road, Agartala. She had purchased various kinds of books from O.P. No.3, M/S Kamal Law House, Kolkata making advance payment of Rs.69,430/- vide invoice No- 102 dated 15.05.14. The books so purchased were entrusted to O.P. No.1, M/S Calcutta Agartala Roadways for transporting to the complainant's address at Agartala. The O.P. No.2 accepted consignment on 15.05.14 on condition that the transportation charge being Rs.1047/- would be paid on receipt of the consignment by the complainant at Agartala on delivery. But the consignment did not reach to the destination till 09.08.14. Finding no other alternative, on 09.08.14  the complainant served a legal notice to the O.P. No.1. In reply to the legal notice, the O.P. No.1 intimated the complainant that in the month of October, 2014 the vehicle bearing No- WB 53 A 0896 carrying the consignment was kidnapped by unknown miscreants on way to Agartala from Kolkata, for which the consignment could not be delivered to her. On 11.12.014 the complainant issued another legal notice to the transporter claiming compensation for the loss of consignment but it evoked no response from them. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.P. transport company constituted negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The O.Ps did not appear and contest the case. Hence, the case has been proceed exparte against them.

4.         In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the documents(11 sheets) filed by her on 21.08.15 with firisti as Exhibit- 1 Series.

        FINDINGS:
5.        The points that would arise for consideration in this case is:
        (i) Whether the O.P. transport company was deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  
      
6.        We have already heard argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. Also perused the pleading, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.

7.        There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had booked 3 bundle of books worth Rs. 69,430/- with the O.P. transport company for carriage from Kolkata to Agartala for being delivery to the consignee. The consignment was booked vide invoice no- 102 dated 15.05.14. As per oral agreement between the parties, the transportation charges of Rs.1047/- was to be paid by the consignee on delivery of the consignment at Agartala. The O.P. transport company hired a truck from the broker firm, namely 'Simron Road Carriage' for carriage of the consignments of various parties including the complainant but the consignment did never reach the destination. 

8.        As it appears, on way to Agartala from Kolkata the truck bearing no- WB 53 A 0896 loaded with consignment of  different consignees had been hijacked by unknown miscreants and the Manager of the O.P. No.1 lodged a complaint with the Officer In-charge of West Agartala Police Station which was entered into the G.D. Book vide West Agartala P.S. G.D. entry no- 939 dated 19.06.14. 

9.        Admittedly, the O.P. transport company accepted the liability to carry the goods of the complainant to the destination with safe and secure. In the case of non-delivery of consignment by the carrier, burden of proving the absence of negligence is on the part of the carrier. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 being the carriers failed to discharge their burden. As per the settled law, in case of loss of goods or delivery to the wrong person or delay in delivery, presumption would be negligence on the part of the carrier. That being so, the O.P. transport company is definitely liable to pay compensation for the loss of the consignment of the complainant.
        
10.        In a similarly situated case, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that ''the common carrier is not a bailee of goods entrusted to him. He his the insurer of goods. He is answerable  for the loss of goods ever when such loss is not caused by negligence or want of care on his part.'' Under the mandatory provision of section 12(1) of The Carriage of Road Act, 2007, every common carrier shall be liable to the owner for loss or damage to any property which has arisen on account of any criminal act of the common carrier, or any of his servants or agents. 

11.         In view of the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that the O.Ps being the common carriers can not escape their liability on the ground that they had no control over the incident which occurred during carriage of consignments on way to destination.

12.        From the invoice No-102 dated 16th May, 2014 it is seen that the value of the consignment is worth Rs.69,430/-. The O.P. transport company in reply to the demand notices issued by the complainant also did not dispute the said amount. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by her.

13.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed exparte. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.69,430/- (Rupees Sixty nine thousand four hundred and thirty) to the complainant as the value of the missing consignment. This apart, the said O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment including Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand) as the costs of litigation. The above said amount is to be paid by the O.Ps No.1 and 2 to the complainant within 15(fifteen) days of receipt of the copy of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full. 

14.                   A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.