BHANDARI INTERSTATE CARRIERS Vs. A K SYNTHETICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 30th June, 1993 by which the Opposite Party was directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 3,65,868.00 together with interest 18% per annum. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under.

(2.) Opposite Party No. 1 is a Transport Company. It provides services for the transportation of goods by charging freights etc. Opposite Party No. 1 had appointed opposite party No. 2 as their booking agents and gave their goods receipts for booking purposes. The complainant is a manufacturer of various types of synthetic cloths. The complainant gave 52 bales, particulars of which are described in the complaint, for transportation from Bhilwara to Kanpur on payment of freight charges to the opposite parties. After taking delivery of the bales, the opposite parties issued GRs. The opposite parties were required to give the 52 bales at Kanpur to the consignee, Bank of India or its endorsee after collecting the consignee copies of GR. The complainant issued hundies for the value of the goods and along with the goods receipts negotiated the same through their Bankers, Bank of India and asked the Bankers to deliver the goods receipt to the parties mentioned in the statement after receiving the amount described in the Hundi. According to the complainant, the opposite parties were not supposed to deliver the goods to anybody without collecting the consignee copy of the goods receipt. The goods reached the destination but the concerned party did not come forward to retire the bills and Hundies by making payment to the Bank. After waiting for a stipulated time, the Bank returned the bills, hundies and the GRs to the banker of the complainant at Bhilwara who returned the documents to the complainant after charging necessary charges. The complainant sent his representative to take delivery of the goods by offering consignee copies of the GR. The case pleaded by the complainant was that if the purchaser did not retire the hundies and goods receipt from the Bank, then the transporter was obliged to deliver the goods at destination to the consignor after taking goods receipt or rebook them to the original place of transportation and deliver to the consignor. The opposite parties did not deliver back the goods to the complainant which they were duty bound to do as a Public Transport Company. The complainant learnt that the opposite parties delivered the goods negligently without obtaining the consignee copy of the GR. The complainant served notice on the opposite parties either to deliver back the goods or pay its price. The amount claimed was Rs. 5,71,868.00. As the opposite parties failed to comply with the terms of the notice, the complainant was obliged to file the complaint before the State Commission claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,71,868.00.

(3.) Needless to say that Opposite Party No. 1 contested the complaint. It was pleaded that the goods were delivered to the consignees at destination under instructions and to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant had collected dues directly from the consignee which clearly showed that the Complainant was interested to deliver goods direct to the consignee. The complainant had given instructions that in case the consignee did not retire the documents from Bank, the opposite party could deliver the goods to the consignee without the documents. It was further pleaded that there was no such general practice to rebook the goods to the original place of booking without written instructions from the consignor. Objection was also taken that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as there was a contract between the parties that all the disputes would be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction as per terms of the Clause printed in the GRs. On the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record, the State Commission formulated three points for determination :