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



Precious Carrying Corpn. v/s National Metal Industries

    Revision Petition No. 3971 of 2007 in Appeal No. 376 of 05 in M.A. 421 of 05

    Decided On, 19 February 2008

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. NAIK
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Vivek Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text

K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member:

1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 5.9.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai dismissing appeal against the order dated 13.12.2004 of a District Forum whereby the petitioner was directed to pay amount of Rs. 1,66,473 with interest @ 9% p.a. to the respondent.

2. Respondent/complainant had booked 59 bundles of SS rods, weighing 2990 kgs, with the petitioner/opposite party for transporting from Mumbai to Trichi vide lorry receipt No. 0437 dated 24.8.2001 on ‘SELF’ basis. Original consignee copy of lorry receipt was endorsed and negotiated by the respondent through City Union Bank Limited. Goods were to be delivered to Vijaya Coy Industries against payment of the bill. However, original consignee copy of lorry receipt was returned by the Bank as Vijaya Coy Industries failed to retire the documents by making the payment. It was stated that without production of original consignee copy of lorry receipt the booked goods were delivered by the petitioner to Vijaya Coy Industries. Thus, alleging deficiency in service seeking certain reliefs a complaint was filed by the respondent which was contested by the petitioner. Complaint and appeal were decided in the manner noticed above.

3. Submission advanced by Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. for the petitioner is mainly two-fold: (1) there was no privity of contract between the respondent and the petitioner and the complaint itself was, thus, not maintainable; and (2) respondent had suppressed the material fact that two more consignment were booked by the respondent and their delivery to Vijaya Coy Industries was made in the same manner and the amounts thereof has been paid by the said Company to the respondent.

4. Copy of lorry receipt in question is at pages 46 and 47. This would show that 59 bundles were booked with the petitioner for transportation by the respondent on 'SELF' basis meaning thereby it was both the consignor and consignee. There is thus privity of contract between the respondent and the petitioner and complaint was maintainable against the respondent.

5. Coming to second submission referred to above, it is not in dispute that delivery of goods covered by lorry receipt No. 0437 had been given by the petitioner to Vijaya Coy Industries without production of original consignee copy of the lorry receipt which was sent for collection of payment through City Union Bank Limited, the bank of Vijaya Coy Industries. Liability of common carriers under the Carriers Act is that of an insurer and it is responsible for the safety of goods entrusted to it in all events, except when loss or injury arises solely from act of God or the Queen’s enemies or from the fault of the consignor, or inherent vice in the goods themselves as held by the Supreme Court in the decision in Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Birla Yamaha Ltd., I (2000) CPJ 42 (SC)=III (2000) SLT 554=II (2000) CLT 83 (SC), alleged delivery of goods in other two cases sent by the respond

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ent to Vijaya Coy Industries has no relevance whatsoever in this case. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.
O R