Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/117/2018

M/s Prem Kaishol Transport Carrier Through Proprietor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Logstic Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ratan Singh

16 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 117 /2018

 

M/s. Prem Kaushal Transport Carriers through Prop. Ajay Kumar Pareek, D- 64 (B) Madhosingh Road, Bani Park, Jaipur.

Vs.

Om Logistic Ltd. Opp.Pushpraj India Oil, Opp.Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Near DPS School,Ajmer Road, NH 8, , Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 16.8.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Ratan Singh counsel for the appellant

Mr. Satyapal Singh counsel for respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 12.1.2018 whereby the claim is dismissed on the ground that transaction was commercial one.

 

The contention of the appellant consumer is that respondent is carrier hence, consumer complaint is maintainable.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondents is that as per definition in sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P.Act when the transaction is commercial one the complaint was maintainable and no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that as per the contention in the complaint the goods were sent through respondent no.2. The goods were delivered in damaged condition and some goods were missing. Hence, claim has been filed.

3

 

The appellant has rightly relied upon 2007 DNJ (SC) 760 Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. M/s.Veljan Hydrair Ltd. where the apex court has held as under:

 

“ In Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd. (2000) 4 SCC 91, this court held that loss of goods or injury to goods or non-delivery of goods entrusted to a common carrier for carriage would amount to a deficiency of service and therefore, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 would be maintainable. When a person entrusts a goods to a common carrier for transaction and the carrier accepts the same, there is a contract for 'service' within the meaning of C.P.Act.”

 

Further reliance has been placed on II (2016) CPJ 253 (NC) Expeditors International India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Carpenter Classic India Pvt.Ltd. where after relying on the judgment of Transport Corporation of India (supra) the consumer complaint was found maintainable.

 

Further reliance has been placed on III (2015) CPJ 572 (NC) Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Krishna Spices Pvt.Ltd. Hence, in view of above when complaint is

4

 

against carrier the complaint is maintainable.

 

In view of above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 12.1.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum. The Forum below is directed to decide the complaint on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 10.9.2018.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm