SOUTH EASTERN CARRIERS LTD Vs. B AJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted cross appeals, filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), arise out of an order dated 22.6.1998, passed by the District Forum-I in Complaint Case No.953/1994 entitled Shri B. Rajendra V/s. M/s. South Eastern Carriers Ltd.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that Shri B. Rajendra (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') had filed a complaint before the District Forum, averring therein that the respondent had entrusted his household articles (old and used), to M/s. South Eastem Carriers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), in 19 packages on 7.5.1994 vide Goods Receipt No.3403050 for being transported from Mysore to Noida (U. P. ). The respondent had also paid a sum of Rs.13,025/- to the appellant as freight charges for a full truck load. Since the goods of the respondent did not reach the destination he made enquiries from the appellant, who informed the respondent that before the said goods could be delivered at Noida, the same were destroyed in a fire accident near Trilokpuri Police Station. It was alleged by the respondent in his complaint filed before the District Forum that despite repeated requests to the appellant, for settling the claim of the respondent for the loss of goods, the appellant had failed to compensate the respondent and, therefore, the latter had been constrained to file a complaint, before the District Forum, praying for the redressal of his grievances.

(3.) The appellant, in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, raised a number of preliminary objections including the objection that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as well as the plea that the consignment was booked with the appellant without getting the same insured and was subject to 'owner's risk' and as such the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent. On merits, it was stated that the loss of goods occurred on account of a fire accident and the same being an act of God, there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant.