LAWS(NCD)-2013-4-161

TATA IRON AND STEEK COMPANY LTD. Vs. BISWANATH

Decided On April 23, 2013
Tata Iron And Steek Company Ltd. Appellant
V/S
BISWANATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant and the Opposite Party before the State Commission have filed these Appeals against the order and judgment dated 25.08.08 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 17/0/03 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the complaint has directed the Respondent Transporter to pay compensation of Rs. 3,13,128/- being 50% of the value of the consignment to the Complainant for the loss suffered by it. Facts:-

(2.) Complainant/Appellant firm, M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Appellant") entrusted a consignment of 204 pieces of 80 Galvanised Medium Screwed and Socketed Tubes to the Respondent Transporter (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") on 28.11.2000 for transportation and delivery to Ambari, Gram Panchayat, District Cooch Bihar vide invoice No. TD/CAL/STP/Dir/48/1191. On the same day, another consignment of 206 pieces of 80 Galvanised Medium Screwed and Socketed Tubes was entrusted by the Appellant to the Respondent for transportation and delivery to Marich Bari Kholta Gram Panchayat, District Cooch Bihar vide invoice No. TD/CAL/STP/Dir/ 48/1192. The total value of both the consignments was Rs. 6,26,256.67. Respondent acknowledged the receipt of consignments by issuing consignment Notes No. BRT/5228 and BRT/5229 both dated 28.11.2000. The freight charges of Rs. 17,018/- were paid to the Respondent by the Appellant. However, on 28.02.2000 the Appellant came to know that the consignments were not delivered to the consignees in Cooch Bihar. On taking up the matter with the Respondent, Appellant was informed vide letter dated 8.03.01 that the lorry driver and the owner of the lorry in which the consignments were sent committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the goods. It was further informed that an FIR was lodged by the Respondent on 13.02.01 against the lorry driver and the lorry owner and in fact one person was arrested and presented before the Magistrate. Appellant sent a legal notice dated 12.06.01 to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 6,26,256.67 towards the value of the consignments entrusted to it. On 03.07.01, Respondent's Advocate sent reply to the legal notice denying any liability towards the Appellant for the lost goods. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs. 6,26,256.67 towards value of the consignments, Rs. 17,018 for refund of freight charges and Rs. 2,05,708.60 as interest.

(3.) Respondent Transporter, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement contesting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that the material was lifted from "TISCO at owners risk" and they supplied only truck for transportation of the goods; that on 4.01.01, the Sales Manager of the Appellant Company verbally intimated to them that the consignment was delivered on 05.02.01 but on 28.02.01 they again informed that the consignment had been delivered; that the FIR was lodged against the Truck owner/driver on the basis of which one person was arrested; that the Appellant is a "consumer" as they are engaged in commercial activities.