Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Consumer Awareness Research Society and Another - Court Judgment

S. Parvatha Rao, President:

1. This appeal has been preferred by the opposite party in C.D. No. 687/1994 on the file of Hyderabad District Forum questioning the Forum's order therein dated 9.12.1996 directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 11,424/- to the second complainant with interest @ 15% per annum thereon from 17.7.1992 and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to both the complainants within one month from the date of the order.

2. The complainants, who are the respondents in this appeal, approached the District Forum complaining that out of 16 boxes containing medicines booked for transport by the appellant from Pattancheru to Panvel in Rayagadh District of Maharastra State for consideration, only 15 boxes were delivered and one was lost and that the medicines in that box and their value was described in the certificate of fact(s) issued in the form of the appellant signed on behalf of the appellant as well as the transferee of the goods, Nakoda Sales Corporation. The entrustment of the lost box for transport was not disputed by the appellant But threefold defences were raised: firstly that the transaction was commercial in nature and therefore the complainants were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short); secondly, that the Hyderabad District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction; and thirdly, that the value of 16 boxes in all was shown as Rs. 17/122/- and only one box was lost and the value of the medicines in that box could not have been Rs. 11,424/-.

3. The District Forum in its order dated 9.12.1996 rejected the first two contentions. We are of the view that the District Forum was right in doing so. The transport of goods entrusted to the appellant was in the nature of service rendered by the transporter. Admittedly consideration was received for the services rendered. We are therefore satisfied that the complainants were consumers within the definition of that expression under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The expression 'service' is also defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act as meaning service of any description including the provision of facilities in connection with, amongst others, transport. In view of the express mention of transport in the definition "service" in argument advanced on behalf of the appellant does not hold water. We do not find any merit in the second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant because admittedly the goods were entrusted for transport to the appellant at Hyderabad and consequently it has to be held that part of cause of action arose at Hyderabad. In deciding the third contention advanced on behalf of the appellant, the District Forum relied on Ex. A-4. We have perused Ex. A-4 in the record of the District Forum which is available before us. The description of the drugs, quantity of each of the categories of drugs, and the value of each drug was clearly shown in the certificate of fact(s) and the total value of medicines and all items mentioned therein comes to Rs. 11,424/-. The fact that it was signed by the appellant is not in dispute. In the counter filed on behalf of the appellant it was admitted that the appellant had issued the certificate of fact(s). But a defence was sought to be raised on the ground that the consignment was insured and that therefore the appellant rightly repudiated the claim. Another contention raised before the District Forum was that the transport was "at owner's risk". That contention was rightly rejected by the District Forum. This aspect has been considered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hindustan Corporation (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. In the result, the order of the District Forum is upheld.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.