BHAGWAN RAM Vs. ANDHRA-PUNJAB TRANSPORT CO , NAGAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant -appellant against order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the District Forum, Nagaur in complaint No. 117/2002 (20/2005) by which the complaint of the complainant -appellant was dismissed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant -appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nagaur on 16.7.2002 inter alia stating that on 19.2.2002 he had booked 15 tons of iron scrap with the respondent transport company and that goods were to be carried at Govindgarh ( Punjab) and the goods were got booked by the complainant appellant through transport company of respondent by Bilty No. 1071 dated 19.2.2002 for a sum of Rs. 7,625 and the value of the goods were Rs. 95,160. It was further stated in the complaint that the goods were to be transported through truck No. RJ 3 G 0827 and the same was sent by the respondent transport company through that truck. It was further stated in the complaint that the consignee of the goods was M/s. Regal Steel, Industrial Area, Motiakhan, Govindgarh (Punjab) and the bill of Rs. 95,160 was also issued by the complainant -appellant against the consignee as mentioned above and ST Form No. 18 C was also sent through Bilty along with the goods. It was further stated in the complaint that since the goods in question had not reached at its destination within eight or ten days, thereafter the complainant had contacted the proprietors of the respondent transport company and they assured that the goods would reach at its destination very soon but ultimately they refused on the pretext that they were not aware of the truck as well as of the goods and since the goods sent through Bilty dated 19.2.2002 had not reached at its destination for which it was the duty of the respondent transport company to carry the goods upto its destination and since the respondent had failed to do so, therefore, for that deficiency this complaint was filed claiming Rs. 95,160, the amount of the goods along with other compensation. A reply was filed by the respondent transport company on 8.10.2002 and the case of the respondent was that no doubt the goods in question were booked with the respondent but it was booked by the complainant at his own risk and Bilty as well as ST Form No. 18 C, if they were given by the complainant -appellant to the driver of the truck, the respondent had no knowledge about that and if the goods had not reached at its destination, for that the respondent transport company could not be held liable and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. Note. It may be stated here that previously the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, Nagaur through order dated 13.2.2003 on the ground that the issues involved were of complicated in nature and could be decided by the Civil Court and agrieved from that order the complainant had preferred an appeal before this Commission bearing No. 644/2003 and this appeal was allowed by this Commission through judgment dated 10.9.2004 and the order dated 13.2.2003 passed by the District Forum was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum. Thereafter the District Forum had passed a fresh order dated 6.5.2005 and dismissed the complaint inter alia holding that since notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1865 ) was not issued by the complainant -appellant and since it was mandatory, therefore, on that ground the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved from the said order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the District Forum, Nagaur, this appeal has been filed by the complainant -appellant.

(3.) IN this appeal the main contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant appellant is that the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed taken into plea of Section 10 of the Act of 1865 are absolutely erroneous one as the position of law is very much settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court by a recent judgment dated 22.2.2007 in the case of Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Veljan Hydrair Ltd., 2007 2 CPJ 35 , in which the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that in case of goods which had been lost or in case of non -delivery of the goods, requirement of Section l0 of the Act of 1865 was not necessary and since in the present case the fact that goods were entrusted to the respondent transport company on 19.2.2002 to be transported from Nagaur to Govindgarh and since they were lost in transit and since they have not reached at its destination, therefore, the case of the complainant -appellant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and in view of this the findings of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the complainant -appellant could not be sustained as they suffer from basic infirmity, illegality and perversity and thus the District Forum had committed serious error and illegality in rejecting the claim of the complainant -appellant. Hence the impugned order could not be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and a decree for a sum of Rs. 95,160, the value of the lost goods be passed.