w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



ANAND ROAD CARRIERS VERSUS THAKUR TRANSPORT

    Revision Petition No.460 of 2005

    Decided On, 06 March 2006

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. P.D. SHENOY
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER.

    For the Petitioner: D. Verma, M.K. Sinha, Advocates. For the Respondent: S.K. Bansal jot, Savitri Bansal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Presiding Member:


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. Anand Road Carriers had also filed a complaint before the District Forum against M/s. Thakur Transport and Travels, "Delhi -110 005 claiming Rs. 12,600 for the loss of Dining table and Carpet in transit from Delhi to Baroda. District Forum after hearing the complainant, as the respondent was proceeded exparte, directed the Thakur Transport and Travels complainant to pay Rs. 8,000 along with 18% interest w.e.f. from the date of filing of this case along with Rs. 500 as costs.



4. 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.


5. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of the State Commission's order, M/s. Anand Road Carriers has come up with revision before the Commission. It is clear from the records that M/s. Anand Road Carriers did not file appeal against the order of District Forum wherein they were directed to payRs. 8,000 with interest @ 18% and cost to the complainant Major (Mrs.) Dhillon. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted before this Commission that Rs. 8,000 has already been paid.


6. There was no privity of contract between Major V. Dhillon with M/s. Thakur Transport and Travels. If there was any relationship it was between M/s. Anand Road Carriers and Thakur Transport and Travels which is unknown to the complainant Maj. (Mrs.) Dhillon. M/s. Thakur Transport and Travels neither have signed consignment note nor has received the tr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ansportation charges. Hence it is not possible to fasten the responsibility and liability of deficiency in service to M/s. Thakur Transport and Travels. 7. I do not find any factual and legal infirmity in the orders passed by State Commission. As the order passed by the District Forum has become final against M/s. Anand Road Carriers, I confirm the same. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
O R