BHAWARLAL SURANA vs KERALA ROADWAYS LTD

THE unsuccessful complainant is the Appellant. THE complainant entrusted to the opposite party carrier on 8.2.93 a consignment of two packages of the value of Rs. 24,700/- at Chennai to be delivered at Bombay, and paid freight charges. THE opposite party took the lorry with the consignment of Calicut. On the way,at Walayar Sales Tax Check Post in Kerala the lorry was detained on 14.2.93. According to the complainant, he was not informed that the consignment would be taken to Bombay through Calicut. Several letters written by the complainant to the opposite party to get the consignment released yielded no result. He had to go to Kerala several times to get the consignments released and ultimately on payment of Rs. 2,964/- the consignment was delivered to him after six months. All these complications arose due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence he suffered mental agony and harassment. On these allegations the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party contended that it was the usual practice for them that whenever consignments were to be taken to the Northern States the consignments would be first taken to the opposite party''s warehouse at Calicut and only from there the consignments were transported to the respective places in North India. This, they were doing for the past 25 years. THE Sales Tax Authorities suspected evasion of tax by the consignor and therefore they detained the consignment. THE opposite parties are not responsible for the action of the Sales Tax officers. THErefore, they are not liable for payment of any amount to the complainant. The District Forum, on consideration of evidence, came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore they cannot be held responsible for the detention of the consignment by the Sales Tax Authorities at the check post and therefore they cannot be made to pay any amount to the complainant. On its finding, the complaint was dismissed.

Now in the appeal, on going through the records carefully, we find it difficult to accept the finding of the District Forum. The question arises as to why the check post authorities detained the consignment. Ex. A 6 is the proceedings of the Sales Tax Officers (Enquiry), Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad in respect of the transaction in question. In this document, among other things, it is stated as follows: "....As per the records the goods are transported, from Madras to Bombay . There is no records to transport the goods to Kerala. In the circumstances the genuineness of the records, bona fide of the transport and thereby attempt of evasion of tax is suspected......."

From this it is clear that since according to the Sales Tax Check-post authorities the records did not show any thing as to why the goods were taken to Kerala and on the other hand the records only showed that the goods were to be carried from Madras to Bombay the Sales Tax Check post Authorities suspected evasion of Sales Tax leviable in Kerala. It is not in dispute that the complainant never asked the opposite party to take the goods through Kerala to Bombay nor is there anything to show that he ever consented for such a route. If the goods had been taken to Kerala, it was done so on the opposite party''s own volition. If there were no records to show the reason for transporting the goods to Kerala, certainly the complainant cannot be held liable for the same and only the opposite party must be held liable. May be the opposite party were used to take the goods that were to be delivered to North India through Calicut only. But from that circumstance only it cannot be said that they are not liable and only the complainant is liable if the goods were detained at the check post. Considering thus, if the complainant had suffered anything, it must be due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party only.

NEXT, coming to the relief claimed, the complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,964/- paid by him to the Sales Tax Authorities for releasing the goods. In our view, he is entitled for this amount. He has prayed for payment of interest @ 18% on this amount from 25.8.93 till payment. We think that this claim is also reasonable. Next claim is a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which, according to the complainant, is the travelling expenses incurred by him for four visits to Kerala. But as regards this there is no evidence at all. Hence this claim cannot be allowed. The next claim is Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental agony, and physical hardship alleged to have been suffered. The complainant has got delivery of the goods after six months of detention. There is no doubt that he would have suffered mental pain. In our view, for this, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- can be awarded. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as loss of business and reputation. For this too there is no evidence.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside, and it is ordered that the complainant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,964 / - penalty paid by him, with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 25.8.93 till payment. He will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for the mental pain suffered by him. We also order for payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-, Appeal allowed with costs.