Tribunals and Commissions(2003) 02 NCDRC CK 0022

GATI CORPORATION LTD. vs VIMALCHAND JAIN

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 27 February 2003 · Citation: 2003 3 CPJ 52

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K.Dubey , B.L.Khare J.
RESULT
Appeal partly allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 471 words
1.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.10.2002 passed in Case No. 167/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the "District Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not delivering the sealed consignment containing 19 kilos 147 grams ornaments worth Rs. 86,141/- of which the value was declared and accordingly freight charges were charged was allowed with an order to return the amount of Rs. 86,111/- with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from 15.9.1999.

2.

AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on reappraisal of evidence on record, the submission that merely on the basis of the declaration of the value of the articles it cannot be assumed that in the parcel which was delivered to the applicant, the silver jewellery was sent as the box was not opened at the time of taking of delivery. AFTER taking intact delivery, the respondent opened at its shop and came with the allegation that the stones, leaves, cloths and newspapers instead of silver jewellery, cannot be accepted as on opening immediately the representative of the appellant was called, who accepted the fault and stated that claim be lodged. A complaint was lodged on 16.9.1999 at the Police Station, Hojrat Kotwali. During investigation, the driver of the applicant was found in selling the silver ornaments with other ornaments by the Dewas Police, who then came to Gwalior and recorded a First Information Report against the driver and others. On that a case under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. was registered. In the circumstances, for the act of the driver, the appellant is vicariously liable to pay the amount as he has failed in discharge of his duty as a bailee. See, the decision of the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways v. Birla Yamaha, I (2000) CPJ 42 (SC). However, in the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award interest. In view of this, we direct the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 86,111/- with costs of Rs. 2,000/- throughout within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent has deposited a cheque of Rs. 86,111/- in the name of the respondent. If, that is so, the respondent shall be entitled to take the cheque from the District Forum to deposit the same in their account, the balance amount if any, shall be paid the appellant.

3.

IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Appeal partly allowed.