J ASHOK KUMAR Vs. ELITE ROADWAYS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd opposite party is the appellant.

(2.) The case of the complainant is follows: the complainant is a registered transport contractor and fleet owner. The 1st opposite party is the commission agent, whose services are utilised to supply vehicle to registered transport companies. The 1st opposite party collects his commission for the services rendered both from the party for whom it engages the lorry and also from the lorry suppliers. The 1st opposite party is arranging for lorry owned by other third parties after fixing freight charges. On 12.11.1999, the Hindustan Lever Ltd. intimated the complainant that 625 packages of Rin soap weighing 10 MT worth Rs.4,64,212.50 were to be transported from Pondicherry to Hyderabad. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party, who arranged a lorry for carrying the above mentioned goods. The opposite party sent a lorry bearing No. PY 01 A 5195 which was owned by the 2nd opposite party and also fixed the freight charges that were payable. The complainant paid an advance freight charge of Rs.5,300/- to the 1st opposite party. The balance freight amount of Rs.990/- was to be paid on the goods reaching the destination and delivery of the consignee. The said lorry driven by one Akbar Basha left Hyderabad on 12.11.1999 but not reached the destination even after the normal running time. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Villianur PS on 28.11.1999. The police arrested the cleaner of the lorry while attempting to dispose of the materials. The police recovered 135 packages of goods worth about Rs.1,00,170/-. since the goods were not delivered, the consignor of the goods deducted the value of the goods from the amount of the complainant and the complainant was forced to bear the entire loss of the goods. The complainant was put to extreme hardship, agony and mental torture. The complainant has incurred heavy loss due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and are vicariously liable for the theft committed by the driver of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- for compensation for mental agony and hardship. Therefore, the opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.3,74,342.50 as compensation.

(3.) The case of the first opposite party is as follows: the first opposite party is only commission agent who supply vehicles to the Transport Company. The opposite party is not owner of the vehicle involved in this transaction. The 1st opposite party is not aware that on 12.11.1999 Hindustan Lever Ltd. intimated the complainant that 625 packages of Rin soap were to be transported from Pondicherry to Hyderabad. As per the request of the complainant, the lorry was sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Subsequently, he came to know that there was theft of the alleged goods by the 2nd opposite party lorry driver. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. As the criminal offence was committed by the 2nd opposite party lorry driver, this opposite party cannot be held responsible in any manner. This opposite party, therefore, is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.