PATEL ROADWAYS LIMITED Vs. BIRLA YAMAHA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether S. 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 (Act 3 of 1865) is applicable to a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of S. 9 of the Carriers Act and its interaction with the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case relevant for determination of the issue may be stated thus:The respondent M/s. Birla Yamaha Limited booked 237 consignments containing 267 generator sets at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, with the appellant M/s. Patel Roadways Limited for transportation. The freight charges were duly paid by the consignor to the carrier and necessary lorry receipt was issued by the latter in favour of the former. The goods booked by the respondent were destroyed in a fire which took place in the godown of the appellant shortly after booking of the consignments. The respondent made a claim for the value of the goods, for refund of freight charged and compensation for the loss. Some correspondence between the parties followed. Since no satisfactory solution was arrived at between them the respondent filed a petition before the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission ('the Commission' for short) in 1994 which was registered as Original Petition No. 43 of 1994. The respondent claimed Rs. 56,00,799/- along with interest. The said sum comprised of Rs. 50,78,231/- as cost of 267 generator sets Rs. 22,568/- as freight charges and Rs. 5,00,000/- as general and special damages on account of harassment and undue loss of time. It was alleged in the complaint, inter alia, that the carrier having accepted the responsibility of transportation of the consignments and safe delivery of goods failed to deliver the same. Thus there was deficiency in the service to be rendered by the appellant as carrier.

(3.) On being noticed by Commission the appellant appeared and filed their counter-affidavit. Therein the appellant did not deny the entrustment of the goods, the booking particulars and issue of lorry receipt, as averred in the complaint. The appellant, pleaded that the consignments were lost in fire which was an accident beyond their control, and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service and the complaint was not maintainable. It was further pleaded by the appellant that the loss having taken place for reasons and in circumstances beyond their control they were not liable to make good the loss either under the contract between the parties or under general law.