PRAKASH TRANSPORT Vs. YADAV CRAFTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the common carrier who was opposite party before the State Commission. Complaint of the respondent-complainant was allowed by the State Commission and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 1,43,000 and Rs. 1.10.600 with interest both @ 15% per annum, on first amount from 1.8.1992 and on the second amount from 3.8.1992. These two different dates refer to the booking of consignments by the complainant which consignments it is alleged could not be delivered.

(2.) Complainant booked three consignments with the appellant for delivery to consignee based in Kathmandu in Nepal, a foreign country. The invoice value of the third consignment was Rs. 2.20.898.75 and was despatched on 11.8.1992. It is alleged that regarding this third consignment complainant accepted a sum of Rs. 1,60,558 from the ultimate consignee based in Kathmandu.

(3.) The impugned judgment of the State Commission is brief. It merely proceeds on the basis that since the consignments could not be delivered, appellant as a common carrier could be liable. We do not think the question was as simple as State Commission thought it. Appellant which is a common carrier operates in India. Goods were to be delivered at Kathmandu to M/s. Khushboo Fashion International Ltd. Goods receipts and other documents were to be negotiated through the Rashtriya Banijya Bank. Kathmandu. The goods were carried by the appellant upto India-Nepal border thereafter another transport company M/s. Prakash Transport (Nepal) (P) Ltd. where after paying the custom duty and taxes, received the goods and took them to Kathmandu. M/s. Khushboo Fashion Industries did not take delivery of the goods. Consequently documents were returned to the Bank.