This appeal arises out of the judgement and order rendered by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short ‘the State Commission’), in complaint bearing No. 29 / 1997. The State Commission allowed the complaint of the respondents and directed the appellant to pay amount of Rs.10,85,397/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The facts, stated briefly are that the respondent no. 1 – M/s. Punjab Anand Lamps Industries Ltd. engaged transportation services of the appellant for reaching of a consignment from Bombay to Mohali. The goods were imported from Netherland and were reached to Bombay by shipment. The clearing agent got the goods cleared from the Bombay port and delivered the same to the appellant against goods receipt. The goods were received by the appellant on 26.7.1995 and comprised of imported 101 cartons. The goods were transferred into 146 packages by the appellant in a truck vehicle. On the way, when the truck vehicle reached near Surat, an accident occurred on a bridge. The truck dashed against railing of the bridge. A part of the railing was dismantled and thereafter the truck fell down in the backwater of the sea. The water level had increased at the relevant time. The damaged goods were, however, collected and were transported in some other truck to the destination. The respondent no.1 intimated about the loss to the respondent no.2. The respondent no. 2 – insurer appointed Mr. B.K. Sharma, as a surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.10.92,273/-. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 paid the amount of loss to the respondent no.1 i.e. the consignee after issuance of subrogation letter by the latter. Both of them jointly filed the complaint against the carrier i.e. the appellant for compensation on account of the loss caused during transit of the goods. 3. The case of the appellant was that the joint complaint by the insurer and the consignee was not maintainable. It was alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation. The appellant further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the insurer and itself (carrier). The appellant further submitted that the Consumer Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The appellant alleged that the complaint was untenable in view of Section 3 and Section 10 of the Carriage of Goods Act. The appellant submitted that under terms of the contract, the claim for damage or compensation was not maintainable when the transportation of the goods was in another truck vehicle, which was not owned by the appellant. The main contention of the appellant was that there was no negligent act on its part and, therefore, there was no deficiency in the service. On these premises, the appellant sought dismissal of the complaint. 4. The parties placed on record certain documents. The State Commission heard learned Counsel for the parties. On merits, the State Commission rejected technical pleas of the appellant. The State Commission held that the appellant was liable to indemnify the respondents for the loss caused during carriage of the goods. 5. The appellant challenged the judgement of the State Commission before this Commission. In the earlier round of litigation, this Commission held that the complaint was not maintainable because there was no assignment of rights on basis of the subrogation letter issued by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. 2. The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal No.7874 of 2002 filed by the insurer. The Supreme Court held that the legal position has undergone change and, therefore, such complaint was maintainable. The matter was remanded to this Commission for afresh decision on merits. The appeal was accordingly restored to its original position and was finally heard. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the services of the appellant were hired for commercial purposes and as such, the respondent no. 1 cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further argued that the appellant had entrusted the goods to another agency and the said truck driver and owner were necessary parties in the proceedings, but were not added in spite of objection and, therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed. The Counsel further submits that there was no material to infer any negligence of the appellant in the carriage of the goods. The appellant’s Counsel further submits that the accident, which had occurred, was beyond the control of the truck driver and could be termed as Act of God. It is argued, therefore, that the impugned judgement is liable to be reversed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgement. 7. At the outset, let it be noted that admittedly the consignment was entrusted to the appellant. The appellant executed the carriage receipt (Annexure I). The clearing agent of the respondent no. 1 is named as consignor and the respondent no. 2 is named as consignee in the cargo carriage receipt. The contention of the appellant that the goods were transported in the truck vehicle owned by some other person will not absolve the appellant from the liability. For, the carriage contract is between the appellant and the respondent no.1. If the appellant handed over the consignment to some other party for the transportation purposes then also the liability of the appellant would continue unless the appellant had obtained consent from the respondent no.1 for such transfer of the liability. There was no privity of contract between the respondent no.1 i.e. the consignee and the third party of whose truck was engaged by the appellant to carry the goods. Therefore, we are of the opinion that non-joinder of such truck owner and driver is of no consequence. 8. We have duly considered the relevant terms of the consignment contract. The learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the Term No.19 which is reproduced as below: “Term 19. The transporter’s shall not be responsible in the event, if the consignment is transported in the Truck not belonging to them and the owner shall not claim from the transporter any damages in the event. But shall the claim from the owner of the motor vehicle.” This term is unilaterally incorporated in the consignment note and cannot be treated as part of the contract. The said term does not mean that the appellant was given liberty to shift the contractual obligations to the third party without consent of the consignee. 9. We may now proceed to consider the manner in which the accident occurred. The very fact that the driver of the truck vehicle was driving the vehicle over a bridge is significant. It was more expected that the vehicle should have been driven with care and caution on the bridge. The appellant did not examine the truck driver in order to establish absence of any negligence on the part of the driver. The fact that the truck vehicle left the main road, struck against the railing of the bridge, got a part of the bridge damaged and thereafter nose-dived in the backwater of the sea are the tale-telling circumstances. In this case, principle “res ipsa loquitor” is squarely applicable. The respondents placed on record photographs of the place of the accident along with affidavit of the surveyor. There is absolutely no substance in the argument that the accident was an Act of God i.e. vis major. 10. The surveyor gave his report after due examination of the consignment and the assessment of the loss was made on basis of actual evaluation of the juxta position. The report of the surveyor (except Ex.C-18) cannot be rejected without there being any substantial evidence to attribute malafides to the surveyor. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the report of the authorized surveyor is incorrect and improper. The surveyor’s report has been, therefore, rightly accepted by the State Commission. 11. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the respondent no. 1 hired services of the appellant on payment of transportation charges and, therefore, it is a consumer dispute. The fact that the respondent no.1 engaged services of the appellant for transportation of commercial goods is of no consequence. The only important question is whether the appellants failed to render the expected quality of service and if there is deficiency in service then whether the liability to indemnify the respondents could be fastened on them. We are in general agreement with the reasons ascribed by the State Commission. We are of the opinion that in view of any counter evidence produced by the appellants, the assessment of the loss can be accepted and the State Commission was right in holding that the appellants committed the deficiency in the carriage service. We do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, it is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents. | 
