RAJDHANI TRANSPORT COMPANY vs J.K. LABORATORIES (P) LTD.

J.K. Laboratories (P) Ltd., Bhilwara, the respondent-complainant, had delivered to the appellant, a transporter, on 9.9.1992 medicines worth Rs. 63,310/- vide G.R. Nos. 78152, 78154 and 78155, all issued on 9.9.1992 for delivery to M/s. Shri Ganpati Agencies, Patna (Bihar). The appellant duly transported the goods from Bhilwara to Patna. But the consignee did not retire the documents sent by the respondent through their Bank. The respondent directed the appellant to re-book the goods back for Bhilwara. The appellant re-transported the goods from Patna to Bhilwara and the respondent took the delivery thereof on 7.7.1993.

THE grievance of the respondent, however, was that on opening the packets containing medicines in glass bottles, goods worth Rs. 55,990.36 was found in broken and totally damaged condition. Appellants version of the case, however, was that notwithstanding the fact that the goods in question were insured with an Insurance Company and that the appellant had undertaken no obligation against breakage of the goods in transit, delivery of the same had been given by them to the respondent at Bhilwara in good condition. It was further deposed by Shri Rajendra Kataria, appellants Manager, in his affidavit that the three cheques which were issued by the respondent towards freight were dishonoured by the Bank. The District Forum, accepted the version of the case as per respondent and decreed their claim for Rs. 55,990.36 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 9.9.1992 and cost at Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by such order of the District Forum dated 12.7.1995 in Complaint No. 190 of 1993, the O.P.-appellant has preferred this appeal.

Since the respondent did not turn up despite service of notices, sent twice to them by registered post A.D., we heard the Counsel for the appellant and find the impugned order bad on fact and in law.

IN support of their version, the appellant had relied upon the receipt dated 7.7.1993 issued by the respondent to the appellant in token of their having recorded the goods in question. There is no mention of receipt of short delivery or damaged delivery of goods by the respondent from the appellant. It is not denied that this receipt was issued by the respondent to the appellant in token of having received the delivery of their re-booked goods. The conduct of the respondent in issuing cheque Nos. 16451, 16452 and 16453 for various amounts drawn on Central Bank of INdia, Bhilwara in favour of the appellant towards payment of freight corroborates appellants version that no complaint regarding breakage of goods in transit was made by the respondent at the time of taking the delivery of goods and issuing the receipt on 7.7.1993. The rejection of this relevant and most material piece of evidence by the District Forum on the ground that non-mentioning of breakage of goods in this receipt does not amount to saying that the goods were not broken was not at all justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record. The District Forum appears to have been influenced by a receipt dated 7.7.1993 issued by one Shri Jagat Singh, Driver on respondents letterhead stating therein that the goods were in damaged and broken condition. Not only that the identity of this person as driver of appellants driver was not established but also that the statement made therein was not acceptable for the obvious reason that the delivery of the goods had been taken by the respondent at appellants place of business and had issued his receipt on that very day. If the appellant had made a short or damaged delivery, the respondent could have, instead of issuing their own receipt to the appellant, obtained a short or damaged delivery certificate from them. The District Forum thus did not appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and hence recorded incorrect findings and wrong conclusion. IN view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with cost on parties. Appeal allowed.