Judgment:
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:
1. The respondent in this appeal P. Madhava Rao got a consignment of 105 cases brown colour ceramic glazed tiles worth Rs. 26,107.20 Ps booked at Delhi to be delivered to him at Khammam on 10.4.1993 and paid the necessary charges to Savani Transport Branch Office at Delhi i.e. the second opposite party. The complainant was informed by the opposite party No. 3 that the consignment reached Khamam on 26.4.1993. When the complainant went to the office of the opposite party No. 3, he found that the tiles were broken and out of 13 boxes six boxes were broken which were visible and the remaining 7 boxes were also damaged. As there was no proper response from the opposite party No. 3 he filed a complaint claiming compensaion of Rs. 26,107.20 Ps. and a further sum of Rs. 4300/- by way of compensation with interest at 24%.
2. Immediately after filing of the complaint, a Commissioner was appointed to assess the damage caused the tiles. The Commissioner submitted a report stating that there was damge of 3226 tiles and the damage to the tiles were assessed at 69.5%.
3. The opposite party filed a counter admiting the transport of tiles. But according to them there was no negligence on their part in transorting the same and they might have been broken at the time of loading or unloading by the workers. It was also pleaded that they are not liable to pay even if the complainant sustained any loss or damage and it was further submitted that the complainant may be directed to take his goods after paying Rs. 2500/- at the rate of Rs. 250/- as damages per day as the goods were not taken delivery.
4. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and spoke to the version about the booking of 105 cases of tiles at Delhi and payment of Rs. 26107.20 Ps towards the price of the tiles and the packing of tiles in 132 wooden boxes as required by the opposite parties. He also stated that he agreed to pay balance of Rs. 2909/- towards the transportation charges to opposite party No. 3 and of his visit to the office of the opposite party No. 3 and he found that the tiles were damaged.
5. After hearing the complaint and the Advocate for the opposite party No. 3, the Disrict Forum held that having regard to the report of the Commissioner that the tiles were damged to the extent of nearly 70%, it allowed the claim of the complainant to an extent of 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 17605/- with interest at the rate of 18% on the said amount from 10.4.1993.
6. In this appeal preferred, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages and the goods might have been damaged at the time of loading or unloading the tiles. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. If there was any damage caused to the tiles at the time of loading or unloading, it should normally be of a case or two. But as seen from the report of the Commissioner nearly 2 /3d cases of tiles were damaged. Hence we are not inclined to agree that the damage might have been caused at the time of loading or unloading the tiles. Evidently this is a loss caused in transit.
7. It is also submitted that under the terms and conditions, the opposite parties are not liable to pay for any damage caused to the goods. In the absence of any material to show that the complainants attention was invited to such a clause and that he signed the agreement having accepted such a clause, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
8. It is also submitted that the interest awarded by the District Forum is excessive. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we consider that interest at the rate of 15% would meet the ends of justice.
9. We, therefore, confirm the order of District Forum in so far as it directed payment of compensation of Rs. 17,605/-. But we reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 15%. We, therefore, direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 17,605/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from 10.4.93 till the date of payment.
10. The appeal is allowed in part as mentioned above. The order of the District Forum is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal partly allowed.