GULAB ROAD LINES Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order rendered by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short 'the State Commission'), in complaint bearing No. 55/1998. By the impugned order, the complaint was allowed. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,79,800 by way of compensation along with interest@18%p.a. from l7.10.1998 till realisation of the entire amount to the original complainants. The facts giving rise to the complaint may be briefly stated in the following way:

(2.) M/s. Deepak Spinner Ltd., original complainant No. 2, had entrusted a consignment consisting of packages of PW yarns, etc. to the appellant for transportation thereof. The appellant agreed to deliver the consignment to M/s. Neeta Textiles, Kurala Road, Andheri, Mumbai - 59. The consignment was loaded in truck No. MCY-5266. The appellant allegedly failed to deliver the consignment at the place of destination. The consignment was allegedly misappropriated by the appellant or the transport agency to whom it was entrusted. Therefore, M/s. Deepak Spinners Ltd., the consignee, lodged a claim with the Insurance Company for the amount of loss. The consignor, M/s. Deepak Spinners Ltd. executed a letter of subrogation after the claim was settled at Rs.9,79,800. The complaint was filed thereafter by the insurer as complainant No. 1 and the consignor-M/s. Deepak Spinners Ltd. as complainant No. 2 against the appellant for recovery of the amount of loss caused due to non-delivery of the consignment.

(3.) The appellant was duly served with the notice of the State Commission. However, the appellant did not appear before the State Commission. The appellant had sent a reply through post. In the said reply, in response to the notice of the State Commission, the appellant did not dispute loss of the goods. The only contention raised by the appellant was that the Commission at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the alleged loss of consignment had taken place somewhere during transit in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State Commission rejected such contention on the ground that the insurance policy was issued by the insurer at Chandigarh and moreover, the loss was sustained by the consignor who resides in Chandigarh.