1. VIDE this order, two appeals are being disposed of, however, judgment is prepared in Appeal No. 732 of 1997. In this case Chloroform Tech (Alcohol Stabilised) was carried by the appellant and the shortage reported was 665 kgs. valuing at Rs. 23,647/- whereas in the case of second Appeal No. 733 of 1997, Dimethyl Formamide was carried and the shortage reported was 322 kgs. valuing at Rs. 24,074/-.
2. THIS appeal is by the Public Carriers Truck Union, Rai Majra, Ropar challenging order of District Forum, Ropar dated May 28, 1997 whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 23,647/- to the complainant the National Insurance Company along with Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Most of the facts are admitted hence they can briefly be summarised. The complainant M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories, Mohali entrusted a consignment containing Chloroform Tech (Alcohol Stabilised) with the opposite party vide Goods Receipt dated February 16, 1996 for being carried from Toansa to Mohali. A short delivery to the extent of 665 kgs. of Chloroform Tech valuing Rs. 23,647/- was found. Since the goods were insured with National Insurance Company, after estimation of the loss by the Surveyor, the aforesaid amount was paid by the Insurance Company to M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories. Thereafter, under subrogation right, both the National Insurance Company and M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories filed the complaint against the Carrier claiming that loss occurred on account of negligent act of the opposite party in short delivery of the consignment. On behalf of the carrier it was represented that it was association of private persons and could not be sued as such. On merits, the booking of the consignment and carriage of the goods was admitted. The short delivery was also admitted. Legal pleas were taken that truck owner or the driver were not impleaded as parties. On evidence of parties, the impugned order was passed.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum wrongly distinguished the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Punjab State Club, Shimla v. Municipal Committee, Shimla, AIR 1959 Punjab 220, wherein it was held that the club was association of persons and could not be sued. The District Forum rightly distinguished the aforesaid judgment as not applicable to the case in hand. It may be observed that complainant, a consumer is a person who had hired the services of the opposite party for consideration and on alleging deficiency in rendering service, he could file the complaint. Vide Annexure A-22 (Goods Receipt, Note), M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories hired the services of the appellant Truck Union for carriage of the goods as stated above. Thus, the present appellant has to be the opposite party whose services were hired by the complainant for consideration. The ratio of the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court referred to above, therefore, is not applicable to the case in hand.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the truck owner or the driver were not impleaded as parties who may have been negligent in carrying the goods and causing loss rather. It has been argued that no evidence has been produced by the complainant about the negligent act of the appellant in causing loss and hence no direction regarding payment of compensation could be ordered. There is fallacy in this argument. The truck owner or the truck driver may be an agent of the appellant deputed to carry the goods as booked by the appellant. When principal party to the contract has been impleaded as a party, it was not necessary to implead its agents who were to implement the contract. It is the appellant who is responsible for the acts of its agents and it was not necessary to implead the agents as parties. The contention of Counsel for the appellant that goods booked could be wrongly packed and no negligent act can be attributed for the loss suffered. This contention again cannot be accepted. Since the goods were entrusted with the appellant, as a bailee, appellant was expected to keep the goods in proper condition during transit. It was for the appellant to explain by leading evidence as to how there was short delivery of the goods. No evidence in this respect was produced. No presumption can be drawn that on account of wrong act of the agent there was shortage of goods.
3. FINDING no merit in the appeals, the same are dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/- in each appeal. Appeals dismissed with costs.
