Indolabs Ltd. vs Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd.

THE case of M/s Indolabs Ltd., the petitioner/complainant is that M/s Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party, respondent did not deliver the goods worth Rs.2,26,367/- to M/s Indolabs Ltd. The complainant had booked the goods with the opposite party/transporter for delivery to the consignee. When the transfer receipt was produced before the carrier, the goods were not handed over to the consignee. The consignee was informed that the goods were not received by the transporter. A number of requests were made to the opposite party-Transporter to deliver the goods but it did not do the needful. The complainant gave a legal notice on 25.9.2002 as required by the Carriers Act. The carrier did not either produce the goods or paid its price. Consequently, a claim was filed with the District Forum wherein the complainant/petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.2,26,367/- with interest. The District Forum allowed the complaint and the respondent-carrier was directed to pay Rs.2,26,267/- with interest thereon @6% per annum and cost of Rs.1,000/-. However, learned State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Carrier and dismissed the complaint.

THE respondent-transporter admitted that the goods were booked with the carrier but on the instructions of the Dhiraj Lulla, the representative of the complainant, the goods were delivered to M/sPurna Enterprises without obtaining the transport receipts. M/s Purna Enterprises had sent a chequedated 28.7.2002 as price of the goods. The said cheque got dishonored and the complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He admitted that the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was decided on 18.8.2007. In the said decision, learned Magistrate sentenced the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakh to the complainant. An appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that that was a different case. He contended that this transaction is separate. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent insisted that this is the same case.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner could not show that the case pending under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is different from this case. He did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the above said facts. He should have produced invoices in respect of these two cases; he should have produced books of accounts; he should have produced different orders, agreements in this context. The petitioner cannot get benefit from one criminal court and another from consumer court. The complainant cannot be permitted unjust enrichment in this matter. A person cannot be vexed twice for the same cause of action. The revision petition is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.