SARAVANA ENGINEERING TRADERS Vs. PATEL ROADWAYS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint was dismissed. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of the lower Forum, the complainant has come forward with this appeal. The complainant case, shortly, is that he entrusted to the 1st opposite party a common carrier of whom the 2nd opposite party is the registered office, 28 Nos. of wet grinders of different sizes for transportation to Bombay. The lorry in which the goods were transported met with an accident as a result of which the grinders fell into a river resulting in damage to the grinders. The consignee who made an inspection expressed that they cannot take delivery of the grinders because they were damaged considerably. Therefore, at the request of the complainant, the grinders were re-transported to the complainant. The complainant found them, on arrival, in a very damaged condition. The grinders have been loaded in the lorry one above the other indiscriminately and in a disorderly manner. The grinders have to be transported, packed and loaded in different tiers side by side to avoid damage. But the servants of the opposite party have not taken proper care in loading the grinders. Thus, the loss was caused due to the mishandling of the goods. There was negligence and misconduct and total deficiency. The value of the consignment was Rs.1,29,838/-. The complainant has suffered mental agony and shock. The complainant, therefore, submits that there is deficiency in service and, therefore, the opposite parties are liable to reimburse to the complainant the value of the consignment along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages, with interest and costs.

(2.) The opposite parties contended that the Consumer Court had no jurisdiction. It is true that the grinders were transported in the lorry belonging to the opposite parties and the lorry met with an accident at a place about 70 kms. from Bombay. The averment that the consignee inspected and expressed inability to take delivery is not true. It is not also the case of the complainant that the goods were completely damaged. The grinders were transported back to the complainant's place as per his letter dated 4.1.1995. The allegation that the goods were very much damaged and they were not properly handled and loaded and they were loaded in an indiscriminately and disorderly manner, is absolutely false. There is no deficiency in service. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount, much less the compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- or reimburse the value of the consignment. The consignment was carried with utmost caution and care. It is on account of the act of God the accident had occurred. The consignment was carried at "owner's risk". The Consumer Court has no jurisdiction and hence the opposite parties prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The fact that certain consignment of wet grinders were entrusted to the opposite parties by the complainant for transportation and delivery at Bombay is not disputed. The complainant has produced materials in the form of consignment note and stock transfer advice to show the value of the goods as on the date when the transportation was made. It is also the common case that at a place about 70 kms. away from Bombay an accident took place involving the vehicle and on account of the accident the wet grinders fell into a river. It is also the admitted case that the wet grinders were transported back to the complainant at his request.