N RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from complaint cases numbered as O.P.No.285/2002 to 289/2002, O.P.295/2002 to 299/2002 and O.P.Nos. 653/2012 to 663/2002, altogether 21 complaint cases, on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum, Ernakulam for short the "Forum". The Forum by common Order dated 11/2/2013 dismissed all the complaints, and aggrieved the common complainant in all the cases have filed the above appeals from the respective complaint cases.

(2.) In short the case of the common appellant, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, that he is a rubber dealer and manufacturers and he had entrusted with the common first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the first opposite party a transporter and common carrier, goods for transporting to Culcutta and to deliver the same to the consignee, the common second respondent.

(3.) First opposite party resisted the claim filing a version challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of long limitation, absence of jurisdiction and non issuing of notice u/s 10 of Carriers Act. It also contended that the negotiations of the documents was only a financial arrangement between the consignor and his bank without notice to the transporter, and in the direct delivery of consignment there was no deficiency in service. Second opposite party after receiving notice remained absent and was treated as exparte.