Pallavi Lorry Supply Office And Anr. vs Aitco Movers Ltd. And Ors.

THIS Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent judgments and orders of the Fora below with a delay of 78 days for which application for condonation has been filed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant, AITCO Movers Ltd., Adilabad was the contractor for transporting the cotton bales of the Cotton Corporation of India (for short CCI'') and had issued delivery order for transporting 46 bales and another order for transporting 74 bales of Ram Spinners Udamalpet, Tamilnadu. The complainant contacted the petitioner/the proprietor of M/s. Pallavi Lorry Supply Office to supply two lorries for the same. The petitioner supplied the lorries of opposite parties 3 and 4 (Mrs. M. Ayasha Naiz, W/o T.K. Mohd. and Shri T.K. Mohd., S/o T. Khader). The complainant loaded 60 bales of cotton each in two trucks and paid Rs. 13,200 for each lorry to the petitioners for which the petitioners have issued loading invoices to that effect. The trucks did not reach the destination though the goods should have been delivered within 3 days from the date of loading and the lorries were found missing. The petitioner did not give any satisfactory reply and later on it was found from the Road Transport Officer, Puttukkottai and Tiruchinapalli that these lorries had numbers allotted to motorcycle and Tourist Taxi Ambassador. It is the case of the complainant that the value of 120 bales of cotton is Rs. 9,39,615 and, therefore, he got legal notice issued to the petitioner. As there was no response, he approached the District Forum.

THIS was contested by the petitioner stating that they are not the transporters but only suppliers of lorries and it was the responsibility of the complainant to verify the documents before loading the goods. The OPs Nos. 3 and 4, remained ex parte. The Insurance Company submitted that the insurance does not cover loss, damage due to misappropriation of the goods. Based on the pleadings and evidence before it, the District Forum directed the OPs 1 to 4, i.e. the petitioners and the lorry owners to pay Rs. 9,39,615 along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and dismissed the complaint against the Insurance Company. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission.

THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before the State Commission that OPs 3 and 4 have cheated and played fraud and they were not aware that the lorry drivers were in possession of forged and fake documents and the complainant after verification and satisfying himself about the genuineness of the lorries only should have loaded the goods. He further pleaded that the complainant should be directed to approach the Civil Court. The State Commission did not find any merit to interfere with the order of the District Forum. Accordingly it was dismissed. Hence this Revision Petition.

THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither the carrier nor it had undertaken to transport the goods themselves. He invited our attention to a document wherein it is mentioned that the complainant had issued the lorry receipts in both the cases.

FINDINGS : During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of Anand Road Carriers v. Thakur Transport, II (2006) CPJ 171 (NC). This case is distinguishable because in this case M/s. Thakur Transport and Travels have neither signed consignment note nor has received the transportation charges. Hence it was not possible to fasten the responsibility and liability of deficiency in service to M/s. Thakur Transport and Travels. On the other hand, in this case it is clear from the documents (loading advice dated 8.10.2000) that the petitioners have accepted the freight charges and have also issued loading advice indicating the registered number of the trucks which were found to be bogus later on.

BEFORE the State Commission it was also urged that the matter involves complicated questions of law and facts and hence it should be relegated to the Civil Court. This submission is not acceptable because of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchants and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=(2002) 6 SCC 635.

THE Lorry receipts filed by the petitioner shows that Pallavi Lorry Supply Office had given two loading advices indicating the name and registered numbers of the trucks and also indicating the receipt of freight of Rs. 13,200 in each case. This loading advice is dated 8.10.2002 and it is on the printed letter head of the petitioner company duly signed. The Cotton Corporation of India Limited had filed a complaint with Sub -Inspector of Police, Adilabad on 23.10.2002 stating that the goods were misappropriated and they had sought assistance to trace out the bales. They also indicated the value of 120 bales at Rs. 9,39,615. They have suggested that investigation may be made against the complainants, suppliers of the truck owners and drivers of the lorries.

IN this case it is very clear that the petitioners had undertaken to transport the goods after accepting Rs. 13,200 for each truck carrying 60 bales of cotton from the complainants for which they have issued loading advice on their letter head duly signed on 8.10.2002. In this loading advice they have mentioned the number of trucks also. Hence it is their responsibility to check up the genuineness of the ownership of the lorries and their registration certificates. This responsibility cannot be fastened on the complainants. The lorry owners/drivers have cheated and misappropriated the goods for which the petitioners themselves are responsible. A criminal case has also filed in this case. The registration numbers of the trucks were found to be fake during investigation. An inspector of police had reported that two drivers and owners of lorries were the main accused and they are still absconding and the lorries were seized and one cleaner was arrested.

THE report of the Circle Inspector of Police indicates that the Cotton Corporation of India, Branch Adilabad informed in the letter Ref. No. CCI/ADB/Ins/07 dated 31.7.2007 to the effect that they received 5 lakh rupees Bank guarantee of transporters and the remaining balance amount from Insurance Company and they closed the file in their office.

OUT of the awarded amount Rs. 5 lakhs has been adjusted from the Bank guarantee of the transporters. Therefore, the complainants are not eligible for the total awarded amount. They can get only the amount appropriated from the Bank guarantee issued by them to CCI along with compensation awarded by the Fora below. Accordingly the order of the Fora below are modified to the extent that the petitioners shall pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs. 5 lakh along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, failing which they are directed to pay 9% interest on Rs. 5 lakh.