A S PAI Vs. DELUXE ROADLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.7.93 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite Party, Appellant herein to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 1,61,725/- towards the value of the consignment lost with interest thereon at 18% w.e.f. 29.1.92 till payment and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 1000/- as costs.

(2.) The facts alleged in the complaint are these. The Complainant is carrying on business as transport contractors for M/s. Tata Oil Mills Company for loading their goods and transporting them to various places. The Opposite Party is the Proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Roadways who is a commission agent and truck supplier. On the request of the Complainant, the Opposite Party supplied one lorry bearing registration No. MH-06-7475 to the Complainant for transporting goods of M/s. Tata Oil Mills Company from their factory at Madras to their factory at Sangli, Bombay. The Complainant made a part payment of Rs. 2,000/- towards freight and the balance of Rs. 2,000/- was payable at Sangli, Bombay. According to the Complainant he made this payment to the Opposite Party as consideration for hiring its services in the supply of the truck for the transport of the goods. A consignment of 450 cardboard boxes of O.K. Washing Soap valued at Rs. 1,61,725/- had been loaded on the said lorry for transport. The consignment, however, did not reach its destination and nothing is known about the consignment. The Complainant claimed that the value of the goods Rs. 1,61,725/- have been recovered from him by M/s. Tata Oil Mills Company and thus he has suffered loss of the said amount. The Complainant claimed the refund of the value of the goods of Rs. 1,61,725 /- with interest at the rate of 24% and compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and costs.

(3.) The Opposite Party being noticed filed its version alleging that he is only a commission agent and truck supplier, arranges as and when any third party require his help for fixing a vehicle to transport things, that he has maintained a list of lorry owners who are informed of the offer for hire to transport and that he has only acted as and in between to introduce the two parties. The submission further is that thereafter it is the party who is hiring to verify and satisfy about the genuineness of the vehicle and its owners, drivers, R.C. Book, insurance etc. and then to engage for hire for loading and transport of the goods by a contract with the owner. It is, however, admitted that the Opposite Party fixed the lorry bearing Registration No. MH-06-7475 and gave the name of the lorry owner and driver to the Complainant for which Opposite Party was paid his commission of Rs. 135/- by the owner of the vehicle. The stand is that the Complainant has not hired the services of the Opposite Party for any consideration and thus the Opposite Party is not liable for any loss or compensation within the scope and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The loss and its quantum is also denied.