SATNA ROADWAYS vs SUMATI TEXTILE MILLS

THIS appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 17-11-92 passed in C.D.F Case No. 425/92 by the Calcutta District Forum hereinafter referred to as C.D.F for the sake of brevity.

THE question involved in this appeal is to find out the liability of the parties for delivery of the consignment to a wrong person. It is true that the consignee note of consignment is only document to the title of the goods under consignment and on production of such document the carrier is bound to deliver the goods to the present of the said document of the consignee''s note but still the carrier appellant cannot escape its liability by merely contending that he entered into a contract with consignor and that he is absolved from all liability for mis-delivery or wrong delivery. At the same time the complainant/consignor who is the opposite party No. 1 in this appeal ought to have prosecuted the Postal authority to trace out the real liability of the parties for such wrong delivery and it was accordingly right step was taken by the complainant impleading the Postal authority and the appellant also impleaded the Postal authority but no positive steps were also taken by it to enforce the attendance of the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Postal authority before this Commission If the registered cover containing the consignees copy had been proved to be delivered to Lalwani Hosiery at Nasik then all issues would have been settled very easily.

It is clear that as the consignment note was issued in the name of the consignee M/s. Lalwani Hosiery, Nasik not on the basis of "self consignment then there is no scope for the carrier to think that the consignor stopped the consignment on transit, at Raipur as unpaid Vendor as the consignee''s note is exfacie proof that the property in the goods already passed into the consignee M/s. Lalwani Hosiery at Nasik. The opposite party No. 1 in Addition to reported cases already cited in this regard before the C.D.F and discussed in the judgment has further referred to a decision reported in A 1964 Madras 516 wherein it has been held that it is the elementary duty of a carrier to enquire whenever a person presents the consignee''s note whether he is the proper person or its authorized agent. The carriers should take steps to call upon him to identify if he is the proper person or they should take some measure or some device to prevent mis-delivery or wrong delivery - where the carrier does not make enquiries of the person who tendered the consignee''s note at their office specially at a shorter distance than actual destination place the carriers have not discharged their duties as a common carrier in delivering the goods to the alleged consignee. The act of the carrier is injurious to the consignor and the former is liable for damages for loss of consignment.

ACCORDINGLY we hold that the appellant is liable to compensate the loss to the opposite party No. 1 for wrong delivery of the goods under consignment and direct it to pay the sum of Rs. 31,924.50 to the opposite party No. 1 within 15 days from the date of communication of this order but considering the facts and circumstances we relieve the appellant for payment of any interest on the said amount. We confirm the judgment and order of C.D.F. except the modification of the order as indicated above allowing the appeal in part. Appeal allowed in part.