SENIOR ROADLINES Vs. GOA ACRYLICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the Order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, by which the order of the District Forum, Panaji, was set aside and it was ordered that the complainant (Respondent herein) was entitled to compensation for loss suffered by him as a result of non-delivery of the goods. The State Commission sent back the case to the District Forum to decide the quantum of compensation for payment to the complainant since it was of the view that in the exercise of appellate powers it was not possible for it to arrive at the quantum of loss suffered by him.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the present Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, Panaji, Goa, alleging that a consignment of goods against the G.C. Note No. 66740 dated 14-12-1989 was sent through the Transporter i.e. M/s. Senior Road Lines, Mapusa (now Petitioner) to deliver on door delivery basis to consignee M/s. Ganesh Plastic Works who refused to pay freight and octroi duty at the rate of 8 per cent instead of usual rate of 4%. The Transporter did not deliver the consignment and returned the documents to the complainant. Later on M/s. Ganesh Plastic Works agreed to accept the consignment on payment of the dues and they-approached the Transporter to take delivery of the consignment. The Transporter refused to deliver the consignment on the plea that the other parties had not paid the dues. The complainant also asked the Transporter to deliver the goods to the consignee, M/s. Ganesh Plastic Works, Bombay, on payment of dues, but, they sent a reply complaining about the non-payment of dues by the other consignees. Along with that letter a statement of dues was also sent. As the dues of the Transporter were not paid, they refused to deliver the consignment to M/s. Ganesh Plastic Works. Thereupon, the complainant filed the complaint praying for a direction to be issued to the Transporter to deliver the consignment to it free of cost in good condition and to compensate for the loss and also pay interest.

(3.) THE District Forum vide order dated 27th June, 1990 held that the case involved a number of questions of law as to the liability of consignor and consignee vis-a-vis the carrier and only a Civil Court can decide the matter after elaborate evidence was recorded. Feeling aggrieved by that order the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which accepted it and remanded the case to the District Forum for decision according to law.