SOUTHERN CARRIERS CORPORATION Vs. SHAHA BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The undisputed facts are that the appellant undertook to transport 60 bales of Comber waste to Gokak Mills which is the division of Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. The said bales belong to the original complainant M/s Shaha Brothers. The opponent is a transporter running business of transport under the name and style "M/s Southern Carriers Corporation" at Nagpur. The said goods were transported by Truck No. ADC 1595 from Nagpur to Gokak on 17-5-92. The value of the consignment was Rs. 2,10,674.14ps. However, during the course of transport, the said goods were destroyed by fire and hence the complainant made the claim of the above value of the goods. Now, this consignment was booked under Lorry Hire Receipt No. 5182, dt. 17-5-92.

(2.) The opponent contended that the consignment was booked on the hire charges of Rs. 7500/- under the above receipt. But the bales caught fire for which the carrier is not responsible. The consignment was carried at owners risk and the complainant should have taken the care to get the goods insured. Under the terms of receipt, the appellant was not responsible for accident, fire, theft and re-booking. The District Forum found that since the goods were entrusted to the transporter, the transporter was responsible for the loss of goods by fire. This fire was on account of negligence of the transporter and hence the appellant /O.P. was made to pay Rs. 2,10,674. 14 Ps.+ Rs. 7,500/- = Rs. 2,18,174.14 ps. with 18% interest thereon from 4-5-92 + cost of Rs. 200/-.

(3.) We may state at the beginning that all these facts are not disputed. The main question which has been raised on behalf of the appellant transporter is that the lorry-receipt was produced in part viz. the front part and that is why the District Forum did not take into consideration, the Clauses on which the appellant was seeking the exoneration. They are, respectively, Clauses No. 1, 4 & 5. Now, Clause 1 reads that even the goods are carried entirely at the owners risk, that the consignor should take over the insurance of the goods and that the liability of the transporter could not exceed Rs. 100/-. Clause 4 provided that the transporter is not responsible for loss or damage to the goods by breakage, evaporation, rough road and weather, strikes, explosion, fire or accident to the vehicle etc. The Clause No. 5 also provided that the transporter was not responsible for accident, fire, theft and re-booking. If these conditions would have been taken into consideration by the District Forum, the liability of the transporter would have extended only upto Rs. 100/-. There is a settled law on that point. The respondent/complainant did not approach the District Forum with clean hands i.e. keeping back these conditions from the scrutiny of the District Forum, the claim is liable to be dismissed on that count alone. One who seeks relief must come with clean hands. One who comes with smeared hands, must be turned out.