ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.
Petitioner is a carrier. Complaint was that the complainant-respondent booked a
lorry for carriage of its goods to Salem through the petitioner, a common carrier.
This was on rental basis. It was second respondent who was the owner of the lorry.
It was submitted that the petitioner is booking the lorry for transporting goods by
taking its commission. The lorry booked through the petitioner did not reach its
destination and the goods of the complainant were misappropriated. In spite of
report being lodged with the Police goods could not be recovered.
2. Complaining deficiency in service complainant filed complaint in the
District Forum which after hearing the parties and going through the material on
record allowed the same and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant a
sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- being the value of the goods, within one month from the date of
receipt of the order failing which interest @ 18% per annum was payable.
Petitioner went in appeal against that order to the State Commission which
dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the District Forum. It could not be
disputed that lorry on which goods were loaded was engaged through the
petitioner who was paid freight charges amounting to Rs. 4,850/-. There is a
concurrent finding of fact which we would not disturb in the exercise of our
jurisdiction under Cause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. It was submitted by Ms. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner was merely an agent and that it was the owner of the truck who
would be liable. It is the petitioner who is working as a common carrier and had
engaged the truck of respondent No. 2 herein for carriage of goods. Petitioner
itself was common carrier for all intents and purposes. It is not material who in fact
owned the truck. Cause of action is not against the truck as such. It is against the
goods which were agreed to be carried by the petitioner, a common carrier. There
is no substance in this argument of Ms. Verma. This petition is, therefore,
dismissed.