ANAND ROAD CARRIERS Vs. THAKUR TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN this case Major (Mrs.) V. Dhillon wanted to transport her personal household effects from New Delhi to Baroda. Accordingly she had engaged M/s. Anand Road Carriers by paying Rs. 3,500. The goods were loaded in the presence of her husband and herself and they took a receipt for 45 items. When the goods reached Baroda they did not find item No. 31, namely, Dining table and Carpet costing Rs. 5,300 and Rs. 7,300 each. Hence, they removed the keys and did not allow the truck to move. On that point of time, her husband received a phone call from Delhi seeking release of the truck and was also assured that she will be compensated suitably. Accordingly truck was released. Despite several requests when she was not compensated, she filed a complaint before the District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi against Shri R.D. Verma, Proprietor, M/ s. Anand Road Carriers, New Delhi-110 064. The District Forum after hearing the parties held that the complainant had contracted with the respondent M/s. Anand Road Carriers to transport her goods from the New Delhi to Broda. The consignment note was issued by the respondent M/s. Anand Road Carrier (Regd.) and the transportation charges were also paid to them. Hence they were responsible for the safe transportation of the goods from the Delhi to Baroda and as such are liable to compensate the complainant for the missing items viz. Dining table and Carpet. However, as the goods were not new, the District Forum awarded Rs. 4,000 each for these two items and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 8,000 with 18% interest from the date of filing the complaint with cost to the tune of Rs. 500.

(3.) M /s. Thakur Transport and Travels filed an Appeal No. 1019/99 before the State Commission against M/s. Anand Road Carriers. After hearing the parties, State Commission held that held that neither were the goods booked with the appellant nor was appellant in any way deficient in service in not arranging the truck. By no means the appellant is liable to compensate the respondent on account deficiency in service. The State Commission further held that impugned order suffers from inherent infirmity and, therefore, the order of the District Forum was set aside and the appeal of M/s. Thakur Transport and Travels was allowed.