Taken up through video conferencing.

1.      This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 02.01.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 3669 of 2001 arising out of the Order dated 27.08.2001 of the District Commission in complaint no. 369 of 1999.

2.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (the ‘truck-owner’) and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (the ‘insurance company’).  No one appears for the respondent no. 3 (the ‘complainant’). The respondent no. 1 (the ‘transport union’) is ex parte vide Order dated 11.02.2013.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 27.08.2001 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 02.01.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.      Chronological facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the petition, may be first recapitulated. On 05.05.1999 the complainant sent goods worth Rs.1,33,920/- by truck. The goods were burnt to ashes en route due to an incident of fire. The District Commission vide its Order dated 27.08.2001 dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the case and vide its impugned Order dated 02.01.2012 ordered the transport union and the truck-owner to jointly and severally pay the said amount of Rs.1,33,920/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till its realization. It discharged the insurance company of any liability. This petition has been filed by the truck-owner in challenge to the said Order of the State Commission. 

4.      Proved facts are that goods worth Rs. 1,33,920/- were transported by truck. The truck was operated through the transport union which had assigned the subject consignment to the truck in question. En route the goods were burnt to ashes due to fire. The insurance cover provided by the insurance company extended to damage to the truck per se only and not to any goods being transported thereby.

5.      The State Commission held the transport union and the truck-owner jointly and severally liable for the loss suffered by the complainant.

In this respect the following extract of the State Commission’s appraisal is relevant.

“It is well settled law that if there is any damage/loss of the goods during the course of transportation, then the transport company/owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Inference is drawn from the judgment rendered by Karnataka High Court in case titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus K. Buden Sab, 2001 Accidents Compensation Judicial Reports 538 - - -”.

6.      Learned counsel for the truck-owner argues that the liability should have been fixed on the transport union alone.  

It is however manifestly clear that the truck was being operated through a union of the truckers i.e. the transport union. The transport union had assigned the subject consignment to the truck in question when its turn came. As such both the transport union and the truck-owner were liable, jointly and severally. 

We also see that this particular defence was not taken by the truck-owner in his written version before the District Commission, where, apart from bald denials of the allegations contained in the complaint, the principal defence offered was only that the truck was insured with the insurance company.

We see that nothing along these lines has been recorded by the State Commission in its impugned Order, leading to a (logical) assumption that this point was not argued in this way and manner before the State Commission. 

We also see that this defence has not been taken in the petition itself filed before this Commission. Here we may quote the following extract from the petition.

“That complainant sold cotton soft waster worth Rs.1,33,920/- to M/s Bhiwani Fibers on 05.05.1999 and the goods weighing 56 qtls. 80 kg were booked with respondent no. 1. Public Carrier Union, Panipat from Panipat to Bhiwani and Respondent No. 1 allotted the consignment to petitioner herein being his turn as a member of union. The truck was insured with Respondent No. 2 herein. On the way the truck including goods caught fire and all goods got burned. The complainant claimed compensation regarding the goods lost in the fire.”

(emphasis supplied)

7.      Learned counsel for the truck-owner then attempts to take cover of the argument that the liability should have been fixed on the insurance company.

However, as already stated above, the insurance cover extended to damage to the truck per se only and not to any goods being transported thereby.

Notwithstanding the afore, it may be added, to put the things in perspective, that the contract of insurance between the truck-owner and the insurance company was a separate contract governed by its own terms and conditions. In case there was any cause for the truck-owner to agitate against the insurance company under its separate contract of insurance that cause remained unaffected when the entirely different cause of the complainant against the transport union and the truck-owner apropos his goods being burnt to ashes in transportation was agitated. 

8.      Learned counsel for the truck-owner then attempts to take cover of the argument that the complainant could have insured his goods and if he was transporting his goods without taking insurance therefor he was doing so at his own risk and cost.

However, having received the consideration for transporting the goods from the complainant consumer, the service provider transport union and the truck-owner were responsible and duty bound for their safe and secure transportation. Failing to discharge their responsibility and duty decidedly falls under ‘deficiency’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) of the Act 1986. We see that the State Commission has aptly dealt with this issue, its appraisal on this count cannot be faulted.

Here we may add that whether the goods were insured or not insured is a different issue.  Obligation and responsibility of the transport union and the truck-owner to ensure safe and secure transportation of the goods to their destination is an entirely different issue. If the goods were not insured it does not imply that they were ‘orphaned goods’ and nobody shall be liable for their loss. The obligation and responsibility to ensure safe and secure transportation of the goods cannot be entirely disowned either by the transport union or the truck-owner and they have their own share to compensate for the loss which will certainly come under deficiency of service of which both of them are jointly and severally liable. 

9.      We find the arguments of learned counsel for the truck-owner to be mutually inconsistent with each other as also each by itself to be wholly unconvincing and inherently untenable per se.

10.    We note that the State Commission has dealt with the issues germane in the matter and passed a well-appraised reasoned Order. We find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principal ignored or wrongly ruled, or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. And we find no good ground for interference in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. 

11.    The petition is dismissed. The Order dated 02.01.2012 of the State Commission is confirmed. 

The amount if any deposited by the petitioner truck-owner with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 05.10.2012 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the respondent no. 3 complainant as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance award shall be made good by the respondent no. 1 transport union and the petitioner truck-owner, jointly and severally, within four weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution as per the law.

12.    The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.