ALOK KHANNA Vs. DIAMOND TRANSPORT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two complaints made under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "act") are between the same parties involving similar questions of fact and law. These have been heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Complaint No.67/99 pertains to a consignment of 12 packages of tin components, weighing 15.040 metric tons, valued at Rs.5,39,184/-, which was booked with the opposite party-M/s. Diamond Transport of India, on 28.12.1998 vide booking receipt (bilti) No.3299 for being consigned and delivered to M/s. Ankur Oil Industries, Ruknapur, District Mehsana, Gujarat. Complaint No.68/99 relates to another similar consignment consisting of 12 packages of tin components, weighing 15.639 metric tons valued at Rs.5,43,455.25 booked with the opposite party on 28.12.1998 vide booking receipt (bilti) No.3298 for being consigned and delivered to M/s. Pankaj Traders of the same place Ruknapur. These two consignments were loaded in two different trucks bearing registration Nos. GJ 06 U 7640 and GJ 7 T-5862 respectively. It is no more in dispute that these consignments did not reach their destination and it appears that the same were stolen or otherwise done away on way. The complainant who is consignor of both the consignments thus claims payment of the price of the two consignments with interest and damages from the opposite party attributing deficiency in service to the latter. In the former complaint the total sum claimed is Rs.7,03,886.08 while the latter claim is for Rs.7,08,669.87.

(3.) Both the complaints are resisted by the opposite party mainly on the ground that they are not the carriers or transporters but only acted as commission agents who on the request of the complainant arranged the said two trucks for transporting the goods. The goods were entrusted by the complainant to the drivers of the said trucks at Mandideep and the two receipts, it is further averred, though prepared and signed by their employee, were finalised by the complainant or his servant. No freight charges were paid by the complainant to the opposite party who only charged their commission. The goods were transported by complainant on his own risk and without getting the same insured. Objection as to non-joinder of necessary party is also taken and it is further contended that this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the complainant should be relegated to seek his remedies by way of regular civil suit.