LAWS(NCD)-1992-8-69

P S N RAO Vs. VENIRE CARRIERS

Decided On August 18, 1992
P.S.N. RAO Appellant
V/S
VENIRE CARRIERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The complainant, Shri P.S.N. Rao, on transfer to New Delhi handed over his Red Colour Maruti 800 Car (1986 Model) bearing Registration No. OAU 6339 to the transporters, respondent No. 1. M/s. Venire Carriers, at the instance of respondent No. 2 M/s. Rolta Motors Ltd. for being transported from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi against a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- . The consideration was to be paid in New Delhi. The consignment Note is dated 15th October, 1991. On 25th October, 1991 the complainant made enquiries from the office of respondent No. 2 about his car. He was informed to take delivery of the car on the next day, i.e. on 26th October, 1991 against the payment of transportation charges amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. On 26th October, 1991 the complainant went to the office of M/s. Rolta Motors Ltd. to take delivery of the car and found that the car had been damaged in transit Mr. Abhijit Singh, brother of Managing Director, told the petitioner that he would talk to the Managing Director and get in touch with him (i.e. the complainant) within a week after setting the things right. On 29th October, 1991 the complainant again went to the office of M/s. Rolta Motors Ltd. but found that his car was not available there. One person was present there, but he could not tell the complainant anything about the whereabouts of the car. The complainant left the office of M/s. Rolta Motors Ltd. and proceeded towards Palam Airport to attend to his other things. Whiie passing through Vasant Kunj, he found his car lying on the road side in a badly damaged condition and there was no attendant. On enquiry, the nearby people told him that the car met with an accident at about 11.30 a.m. while two males were occupying the car and one of them was seriously injured in the accident. The complainant went to the Vasant Kunj Police Station and lodged a Written Complaint. The complainant was told that a First Information Report had already been recorded at the instance of Delhi Traffic Police about the accident. Thereafter correspondence took place between the complainant and the respondents. The complainant was insisting for a new car and also claimed damages. The respondents, on the other hand, asked the complainant to lodge his claim with the insurance Company. As the complainant did not get any relief from the respondents, he filed the present petition before this Commission, claiming Rs. 30,65,500/- which include the replacement costs of the car plus damages for mental trauma etc.

(2.) We do not think it necessary to reproduce the allegations of the respondents. Vide order dated 7th May, 1992, this Commission, after hearing the arguments in part, was of the opinion that as the complainant's Maruti Car has suffered damage while it was in the custody of the carrier, namely, the 1st respondent, which was in the position of a bailee who had undertaken to transport the vehicle from Bhubaneswar to Delhi, it was the undoubted responsibility of the 1st respondent to get the vehicle repaired and put it back in perfect road- worthy condition. For that purpose, as agreed by both the parties, it was ordered that the repairs be got carried out by a workshop run by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Within a period of one week from the date of the Order with instructions, firstly to find out whether the vehicle was capable of being restored to a road-worthy condition and secondly to carry out all works that were necessary to put it in perfect road-worthy conditions in case it was capable of being repaired. The repairs were to be got completed within a period of one month from the date of delivery of the vehicle to the workshop at the expense of the 1st respondent.

(3.) M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. informed this Commission that there was no workshop of their own in Delhi. It sent a list of authorised dealers workshops in Delhi for doing repairs. Vide order dated 20th May, 1992, as agreed by the complainant and the Counsel for respondent No. 1, in modification of the earlier order passed by us, it was ordered that the respondent No. 1 shall take delivery of the Maruti Car, in the damaged condition, from M/s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. in whose garage it was then lying, after payment of garge charges etc. and get the vehicle thoroughly repaired at the workshop of M/s. Aganal Traders Ltd. RZ-721, Palam Village, New Delhi. The car has been duly repaired and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. has certified that the vehicle has been repaired satisfactorily and that it was in perfect road-worthy condition.