PATEL ROADWAYS LTD Vs. HARIRAM LAXMINARAYAN HEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 13. 3. 200 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore disposing of appeal against the order dated 7. 4. 1997 of a District Forum with the modification that respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 1 is also liable along with petitioner/opposite party No. 2 to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 33,075 with interest @ 15% p. a. from 12. 11. 1991 and cost of Rs. 1,000 to respondent No. 1/complainant. Complaint against respondent No. 2 was dismissed.

(2.) IN short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these, respondent No. 1 had booked a parcel containing sarees worth Rs. 33,075 with the petitioner for being delivered to M/s. Jaichandlal Vinod Kumar of Calcutta. Goods receipt (GR) dated 12. 11. 1991 issued by the petitioner was sent by recorded delivery through respondent No. 2 to the consignee on 13. 11. 1991. It was alleged that M/s. Jaichandlal Vinod Kumar neither received the parcel of sarees nor the goods receipt sent through respondent No. 2 postal authority. Therefore, complaint was filed seeking recovery of the value of sarees along with interest by respondent No. 1 which was contested by the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Petitioner alleged that on production of consignee's copy of GR the parcel of sarees had been delivered and it was, therefore, not liable to pay the amount claimed. Liability to pay the amount was disputed by respondent No. 2 in view of the provisions contained in Indian Post Offices Act. Complaint was allowed by the District Forum and in appeal by the petitioner the District Forum's order was modified by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. Shashank Moona for petitioner was that loss of consignee's copy of GR in transit was not intimated to the petitioner by respondent No. 1. Since parcel of sarees in question was delivered on production of original consignee's copy of GR after obtaining discharge on reverse thereof, no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner nor can it be held responsible for the loss caused to respondent No. 1. In support of the submission, our attention was drawn to consignee's copy of GR at page 28. Reverse of this copy bears the rubber stamp of M/s. Jaichandlal Vinod Kumar along with signature. Consignee's copy of G. R. and the affidavit filed by way of evidence on behalf of petitioner before the District Forum, thus, support the plea taken in written version by the petitioner that the parcel of sarees was delivered by it. As may be seen from the order dated 7. 4. 1997 the District Forum was of the view that as in the affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner it had not been stated that petitioner had made proper inquiry to identify the person who came to take delivery on behalf of the consignee the petitioner was deficient in service resulting in loss to respondent No. 1. Correctness of this conclusion was, however, not examined by the prosecution. The Carriers Act does not caste any duty on a carrier to make an inquiry whenever a consignee's copy is presented for taking delivery of consignment that the person presenting the consignee's copy is actually the consignee or its authorized agent. There were no suspicious circumstances to doubt by the petitioner the genuineness of the person taking delivery of the parcel of sarees on production of the original consignee's copy of GR. We, therefore, dis-approve the above conclusion reached by the District Forum. Thus, the order passed by Fora below against the petitioner cannot be legally sustained and deserves to be set aside.