SINGH TRANSPORT SERVICES Vs. GAJANAND POHA UDHYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 19.1.2007 in Complaint No.232/2006 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "district Forum" for short), whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.58,171 with interest @ 6% from 15.12.2005 together with compensation of Rs.5,000 towards mental suffering and Rs.500 towards cost.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had got an insurance policy No.190507/21/2004/000005 for the period from 1.4.2004 to 21.3.2005 and during subsistence of the said policy Gajanand Poha Udyog had booked 100 bags of Poha for being delivered to Sumit Traders, Indore on 3.8.2004. The said Poha was properly packed in jute bags and was sent by truck No. MP-04-KP-6255 of the opposite party - transport service and Rs.3,950 was paid towards consideration. As per averments of the complaint, due to negligence of the opposite party the Poha was destroyed due to rains and the Sumit Traders refused to accept the said consignment. It is further averred that the transporter ought to carry Poha carefully well covered with tarpaulin sheet, but they did not do so. Hence, 100 bags of Poha amounting to Rs.58,100 was destroyed. As the amount was not paid by the opposite party, the complainant laid claim before the insurer for payment of an amount of Rs.51,178. The insurer appointed the Loss Assessor, Surveyor Manoj Kumar Saxena and the said Surveyor said in his report that Poha was destroyed due to rains. Only 32 bags were accepted by Sumit Traders. The aforesaid amount of Rs.51,178 was paid by the insurer. The complainant M/s. Gajanand Poha Udyog had issued a Letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of the insurer. On basis of aforesaid Letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney the insurer has filed the complaint.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite party- transporter. It was averred in the written version that the opposite party had not received any amount for transportation, from the complainant. The responsibility of carrying the goods carefully was of the driver and owner of the vehicle. Whereas, the opposite party is only a commission agent who received commission from the truck owner and driver not from the complainant. Hence, the complainants are not consumer of the opposite party. It was further averred that the complainant adopted insurance cover under the Marine Policy and the driver had duly covered the goods with tarpaulin sheet and had reached the Sumit Traders with goods late at night but since labours were not available to unload the goods, the goods were not unloaded and the vehicle was parked in the godown of Sumit Traders. The goods were destroyed in the godown of the Sumit Traders on account of getting wet due to rains. The opposite party is not responsible in the circumstances of the case.