BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 234/2012
1. | Sri Sharanasingh A Rana, Prop. Bombay Super Sale, Aged about 35 years, Occu:Business, R/at Old Radio Maidan, Gandhi Chowka, Bijapura. Rep. By. His GPA. Sri.Basanagouda, S/o Siddanagouda, Patil, Aged about 29 years, Occu:Business, R/at Old Radio Maidan, Ghandi Chowka, Bijapura. (By Sri Chandranatha Ariga, Advocate) | ……Appellant |
V/s
1. | The Manager/Proprietor, Girnar Cargo Excort, Opp.School, No.7, Shahpeth, Bijapura-586101. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | The Manager/Proprietor, Girnar logistic Private Limited, 34, Ganesh Ganja, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, State. | |
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2011 passed in CC.No.115/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bijapur and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The appellant is a business man doing the business in textile under the name and style of “Bombay Super Sale” at Gandhi Chowka, Old Radio Maidan, Bijapur. They have number of branches all over Karnataka. They use to buy the cloths from ‘Niharika Fashion’, ‘Bhagyalakshmi Fashion’ and ‘Virat Prints’ at Surat and sell the same in Karnataka in their different branches. For the transportation of these cloths they took assistance from Girnar Logistic Private Ltd., (Transport company), Surat. The selling agreement is based on “TO PAY” method, i.e. on delivery of the goods only the appellant to settle the amount. On 29.07.2011, the appellants purchased dress materials from ‘Niharika Fashion’, ‘Bhagyalakshmi Fashion’ and ‘Virat Prints’ worth Rs.1,43,640/-. The goods were entrusted to Respondent No.2. The goods are to be delivered at Bijapur.
3. Though the said goods have been sent on 29.07.2011 from Surat to Bijapur, the same was not delivered to the appellant. The appellant enquired upon the good not delivered and the respondent informed the appellant that it will be delivered within a short time and later on 11.08.2011 the Respondent No.2 delivered only one item and informed the appellant that other 3 items were stolen. In the mean while, i.e. on 03.08.2011 and 08.08.2011 the appellant had paid the amount towards the materials and transportation charges through Syndicate Bank, Bijapura and ING Vysya Bank Bijapura as a full and final payment. On 08.08.2011 the Respondent No.2 issued a Short delivery Certificate in which the value of he goods is shown as Rs.29,719/- as not paid. The bill No.509807 clearly discloses the amount that Rs.45,939/-. This is a clear proof of the respondent delivering only one item. Hence, the complaint.
4. The Respondent appeared through his counsel and admitted that the items were stolen and assured that the appellant will be compensated.
5. After trial, the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint and directed to pay only Rs.49,600/- against the bill amount of Rs.1,43,600/- being the value of the goods along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards Litigation costs.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/Complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
7. Appellant has filed written arguments. In spite of opportunities has been granted to the Respondent they have not argued the matter.
8. Perused the appeal memo, the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that on 29.07.2011 the appellant has booked consignment at Surat to be delivery at Bijapur in four separate bills and on 11.08.2011 the appellants has taken delivery of one bail out of four bails amount of Rs.45,939/-. It is also an admitted fact that remaining three bails value of the goods were total of Rs.98,160/- which was not delivered to the appellant because it was stolen in transit from Surat to Solapur. It is also not in dispute that Respondent-2 has given Police complaint on 31.07.2011 and also notice was given to the truck owner. It is also not in dispute that on 02.09.2011 the agent of appellant requested for written endorsement of stolen goods of three bails and Respondent-1 has endorsed the same.
9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, the District Commission relied on the judgment 2009(1)CPR459, Tata Iron and Steel Company v/s Mr. Vishwanath and passed the order and hold that “dispatched goods without Insurance coverage and thus sent goods on owners risk and failed to take proper majors against such loss. Hence, Appellant/Complainant was not entitled to full amount due to loss of goods – both Appellant/Complainant and Respondent/Opponent to bear loss of 50% each”. We are not agree with the order passed by the District Commission because when a common carrier undertakes to transport the goods for fee, it is his duty to take due care of the goods in his custody and ensure its safe transportation and delivery failed to do so constitutes deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act.
10. In present case also the Respondents have admitted the loss of three bails and value of the goods are Rs.98,160/- in transit from Surat to Solapur. Hence, in our opinion the appellant is entitled for full amount for the loss of goods as per receipt along with compensation.
11. Hence, considering the facts and discussions made here we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Commission is not just and proper. Hence, interference is required. We proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.98,160/- for loss of three bails value of the goods along with 6% interest from date of complaint till realization and further Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards Litigation costs.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
SP*
