1. THIS is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Wardha dated 13.4.94 passed in Complaint No. 123/93. A. Complaint was filed by Anilkumar Vora against the opposite party alleging deficiencies in the service of a transporter claiming the amount of Rs. 33,678/-. Admittedly, the complainant had hired the services of Opposite Party. The first opponent is a transport company owned by second opponent and the third opponent was the driver of truck No. MWA-5775. Thakkar Brothers had despatched 100 sugar bags from Pravarainagar to the complainant at Wardha on 29.6.93 worth Rs. 99,000/-. In order to carry the aforesaid bags, the services of first opponent were hired for a consideration of Rs. 1912.50, which was to be paid at Wardha. The first opponent accordingly carried the aforesaid sugar bags and delivered to the complainant at Wardha on 29.6.93. The consideration amount of Rs. 1912.50 was to be paid by the complainant at Wardha. The said truck arrived on 1.7.93 for which an amount of Rs. 760.15 towards the octroi charges were paid by complainant. When the truck was being unloaded the complainant found that 38 sugar bags were in damaged condition due to rain water. Out of these 38 bags 30 bags were completely damaged while the remaining 8 bags were partially damaged. The third opponent intimated this fact to second opponent and requested him to go to Wardha. However, he could not go and thus the complainant was given the delivery of the sugar bags out of which 38 bags were in damaged condition as stated above. The complainant, therefore, alleged that due to the negligence in the service of opposite parties the complainant suffered the loss of Rs.29,700/- for 30 bags and Rs. 1600 towards the 8 partially damaged bags. The complainant alleged that he suffered the total damage of Rs. 31,300/-. The complainant also alleged that he incurred the expenses on account of the octroi, hamali and other charges for which he claimed additional amount of Rs. 1428/- and Rs. 950/-. Thus total claim is of Rs. 33,678/- claimed from the opposite parties.
2. IT is found that the opposite parties refused to accept the notices from the District Forum and, therefore, the District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Party. The complainant filed his affidavit and necessary documents on the basis of which the District Forum passed the impugned order holding that there was deficiency in the service of Opposite Party and ordered the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 to pay to complainant an amount of Rs. 33,678 /- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% pa. Thus order has been impugned in this appeal, by M/s. Anil Transport Company. However, the second and third opponent did not prefer any appeal.
We have heard Mr. Mokashi, Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. Padolay, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Mokashi, the learned Advocate for appellant raised the contention that the District Forum, Wardha had no jurisdiction to decide the consumer dispute, since no cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Wardha District Forum. After going through the impugned order and the facts of this complaint, we find that Mr. Mokashi is not correct in his submissions. The complainant is admittedly a beneficiary of the consignments since he was to receive the sugar bags as an owner. It is also found that the hiring charges of the consignment were paid by the complainant at Wardha to the opposite parties. Moreover, the damaged condition of the 38 sugar bags were noticed at Wardha. Thus, it is very evident that the part of the cause of action arose at Wardha within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Wardha. U/Sec. 11 of the C.P. Act, 1986, the complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. We clearly find that the part of the cause of action viz. the delivery of the consignment and payment of hiring charges has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Wardha District Forum. Moreover, the damaged condition of bags was noticed at Wardha. Thus, in our view, the Wardha District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
Mr. Mokashi further alleged that there was no notice received by the appellant during the proceedings before the District Forum. However, we find that the District Forum in para 4 of its order has stated that the notices were issued to the non-applicant 1 to 3. However, they refused to accept the notice and, therefore, it was treated as a good service and the District Forum therefore, proceeded further ex-parte against the opposite parties. It is clear finding of the District Forum that the opposite parties were served by the notices from the District Forum, Wardha. We, therefore, find that this contention also do not survive any more. Lastly, Mr. Mokashi, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has stated that there is no evidence as regards the damaged condition of the sugar bags. However, in para 7 of the order, the District Forum has clearly noted that on perusal of the bags Ex. 1, it is found that the tarpolin which covered the truck was found in torn condition. Similarly, wooden planks of the truck were also found broken due to the rain water. According to Mrs. Padolay, this fact is indicative of the circumstances that it caused damage to 38 sugar bags. Under these circumstances, we find that the complainant suffered the damage to his 38 sugar bags for the amount of Rs. 31300/-. We, therefore, find that the finding of the District Forum to pay to complainant the compensation of Rs. 31,300/- is justified. However, in our view, the order to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 1,428/- towards the octroi is not correct. It is a duty of the consignee to pay the octroi duty. It is not the duty of the transporter to pay the octroi duty. Thus, the order to pay Rs. 1,428/- is not justified. In view of our discussion made above, we find that there is no substance in this appeal and hence it is required to be dismissed with little modification. Hence, we pass the following order : - ORDER While dismissing the appeal, we modify the order to the extent that instead of Rs. 33,678/-, the Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 31300/- to complainant only. Parties to bear their own costs. Order modified
