Transport Corporation Of India LTD. vs Dinesh Agarwal

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the Complainant had purchased few machine parts from Sree Sakthi Equipments Company, Coimbatore which were packed in 5 separate packets. The entire consignment was booked on 13.01.2007 for transportation from Mettupalayam to Rourkela through the Transport Corporation of India (TCI) OP. It was alleged that on 22.02.2007 the consignment was arrived at Rourkela and it was noticed that only 4 packets were available and the packet containing main parts of the machine worth Rs. 1,60,000/- was missing. Hence, the complaint was filed before the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela.

The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written version. The complaint is not a consumer, the services were rendered for commercial purpose, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and vide order dated 22.02.2010, ordered the OPs to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- with 8% interest p.a from the date of missing of the packet i.e 22.02.2007 till realization to the Complainant. Rs. 2,000/- was also granted towards cost of the complaint to the Complainant.

Being aggrieved, the OP filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 22.02.2019 dismissed the appeal, holding as follows:

The present consumer dispute has nothing to do with the contract of sale between seller of the machines and the purchase i.e. the complainant. Dispute is confined to contract of carriage between the complainant and the O.Ps. representing Transport Corporation of India Limited which , in view of law as laid down and referred to above has absolute liability of safe carriage and delivery of the consignment to the consignee. Admittedly, out of five packets consisting the consignment only four packets were delivered. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no scope to interfere with the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the OP approached this Commission.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / OP, perused the material on record.

Firstly, in my considered view, there is jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to adjudicate such cases, I would like to reply upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways v. Birla Yamaha Ltd. 2000 CTJ 241 (SC) (CP) held as:

"30. From the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act noted in the foregoing paragraph the position is clear that the consumer disputes redressal agencies, i.e. District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are vested with powers of adjudication of all types of consumer disputes. No exception is made in case of consumer disputes in which the allegations made in the complaint regarding deficiency of service causing damage to or loss of the goods are contested. Indeed finality is attached to the orders of the redressal agencies and provision is made for execution and implementation of the orders passed by them treating such orders as decree of the Court. It is relevant to state here that on a perusal of the provisions of the Act it is clear that the scheme of the statute is to provide a hierarchy of redressal forums for attending to the grievances of consumers regarding deficiency in service promptly and give finality to the orders passed by the agencies. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention that the dispute redressal agencies provided in the Consumer Protection Act are not forums which have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in which claims for loss or damage to goods entrusted to a carrier for transportation is seriously disputed."

Secondly, it is the sole responsibility of the carrier to transport the goods / consignment to the designated place in a proper manner and in safe condition.

I find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), I find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. I note in particular the extract of the observation made by the State Commission, quoted verbatim in para 5 above. I find the award made by the District Forum, and as affirmed by the State Commission, to be just and appropriate. And, on the face of it, I find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.