LexM/S. NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT COMPANY (REGD.) versus M/S. NATH TRADERS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 {ADDL.) S.C.R. 481
MIS. NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT COMPANY
{REGO.)
v.
MIS. NATH TRADERS & ORS.
{Civil Appeal No. 3546 of 2006)
DECEMBER, 07, 2011
[P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:
Restitution - Complaint against the carrier company for
A
B
c
the goods damaged in transit - District forum holding the
carrier company liable to the consignees for negligence -
Held: If the amount determined by District Forum covered the
price of damaged goods and the carrier had returned the said 0
goods to the consigner and the latter having received the
price of said consignment from the consignees, also retained
the consignment or disposed it of but has not paid the realized
amount to the carrier, the consigner would stand unjustly
enriched - Matter remitted to District Forum to order the
E
consigner to return the damaged goods or its value to the
carrier - Unjust enrichment.
Respondent No.3 booked a consignment of
monoblock pumps with the appellant for transportation
from Coimbatore to respondents No.1 and 2 at Gwalior.
F
The truck transporting the consignment met with an
accident and the monoblock pumps were damaged.
Respondents No.1 and 2, therefore, did not take delivery
of 198 damaged monoblock pumps. The appellant
returned the said articles to respondent No.3.
G
Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a complaint before the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, stating that
they had paid the price of the consignment to respondent
No.3 and were entitled to the same, along with damages.
481
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A The District Forum, held that the appellant as a common
carrier was the insurer of the goods in transit and as the
goods were damaged, the appellant was liable to
respondents No.1 and 2 for negligence. It awarded a sum
of Rs.3,60,131/- along with interest@ 18% per annum
B from 01.04.1997 till the date of payment. On appeal, the
State Commission, maintained the award but reduced the
interest to 12%, payable from the date of filing of the
complaint (2.3.1998) till the date of payment. The revision
filed by the appellant was dismissed by the National
c Commission.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If the amount directed by the District
Forum to be paid by the appellant to respondents No.1
D and 2 covered the price of the monoblock pumps and this
price of the monoblock pumps had also been received
by respondent No.3 from respondents No.1 and 2, the
appellant was entitled to the return of the damaged 198
monoblock pumps from respondent No.3, and in case the
E latter has disposed of the articles in the meanwhile, the
appellant was entitled to the value thereof realized by
respondent No.3; otherwise, respondent No.3 would
stand unjustly enriched. [Para 8] [486-8-D]
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe
F Barbour Ltd. (1942) 2 ALL ER 122 (HL) - referred to
1.2 Respondent No.3 was not entitled to any charges
towards watch and ward etc. as it should not have
retained the damaged monoblock pumps having received
G the full price thereof. [para 8] [486-G]
1.3 The matter is, therefore, remanded to the District
Forum, with the direction to issue notice to the parties and
after taking evidence, if necessary, order the return of the
H 198 damaged monoblock pumps by respondent No.3 to
NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT COMPANY (REGO.) 483
v. NATH TRADERS & ORS.
the appellant and if the said goods are not available with
A
respondent No.3, to find out its value and direct
respondent No.3 to pay the same to the appellant. [Para
9) [486-H; 487-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
(1942) 2 ALL ER 122 (HL)
referred to
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3546 of 2006.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2003 of the
C
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 371 of 2000 and 10.4.2003 in
Misc. Petition No. 98 of 2003.
Sudarsh Menon for the Appellant.
Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, P.K. Bajaj, Brahm Singh and Prem
Sunder Jha for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal by way of special
leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order
dated 18.02.2003 of the National Consumers Disputes
Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.371 of 2000.
2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent No.3
booked a consignment of monoblock pumps with the appellanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.