At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR
By, PRESIDENT; MR. MAHESH CHANDRA MEMBER & MS. RUMNITA MITTAL
For the Appellant: None. For the Respondent: R.D. Verma, Proprietor.
J.D. Kapoor, President:
1. Vide impugned order dated 20.1.1999, passed by the District Forum, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the respondent-transporter on account of deficiency in service by delivering two items of household goods short. Feeling aggrieved it has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant is engaged in the business of supply of the vehicle for transportation of goods. One truck was arranged by the appellant for the respondent for carrying the household goods of one Maj. V. Dhillon from Delhi to Baroda. Respondent paid advance of Rs. 2,500/- against the total hiring charges of Rs. 4,500/- to the appellant vide slip No. 3295 dated 1.6.1998. Two items namely dining table of the value of Rs. 5,300/- and one carpet having price of Rs. 7,300/- were delivered short.
3. One complaint was filed by Maj. V. Dhillon, against respondent M/s. Anand Road Carriers wherein it was directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- to Maj. V. Dhillon. In return the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant claiming the amount of the lost goods.
4. As is apparent from the aforesaid facts, the services of the appellant were availed only for the purpose of arranging the truck. Goods were delivered to the respondent for transportation from Delhi to Baroda. Thus the appellant had no privity of contract with Maj. V. Dhillon for the purpose of carrying his household goods from Delhi to Baroda. Appellant received part of the hiring charges for arrangement of the truck. 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 of deficiency in service.
5. The impugned order suffers from inherent infirmity inasmuch as that the appellant was held guilty for deficiency in service in spite of his having provided the service by arranging the truck for the respondent and that too against part payment made against the total hiring charges made by the respondent. Rather the appellant is entitled to receive the balance amount it already not paid by the respondent and not vice-versa.
6. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
7. FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.
8. A copy of this order as per s
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
tatutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum. The record received from the District Forum may also be returned to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal allowed.