M/S. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus M/S. VELJAN HYDRAIR LTD.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1082 · Decided: 22-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 
M/S. VELJAN HYDRA IR LTD. 
FEBRUARY 22, 2007 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
ss. 2(h) and 24-A-Deficiency in 'service'-Contract for carriage of 
C goo<ls-Non-delivery of goods-Requirement of issuing notice under s. JO of 
carriers Act-Limitation for filing claim-Common carrier by letter dated · 
3. 7.99 requesting for time to locate and deliver goods-Thereafter not 
informing the status-Complaint under the Act filed on 5. 7.2001-Held, 
there was no need lo issue notice uls IO of the Carriers Act and non-issue 
D of such a notice did not invalidate the claim-Complaint is not barred by 
limitation uls 24-A-Notice-Carriers Act, 1865-s.JO 
Contract: 
Contract for carriage of goods- 'Consideration '-Non-delivery of 
goods-Claim resisted on ground that because of non-payment of freight 
E charges, there was no consideration for contract for service-Held, contract 
for transportation being for consideration (freight charges), mere fact that 
such consideration is not paid would not make the service free of charge-
Carrier having misplaced goods cannot demand freight charges. 
Carriers Act, 1865-s. IO-When notice not necessary. 
F 
Respondent entrusted consignment of a machine to the appellant, a · 
'common carrier'. The said consignment did not reach its destination and 
this r1~sulted in exchange of correspondence between the parties - the 
respondent asking the appellant to deliver the consignment and the latter 
assuring to locate and deliver the goods - the latest of such communication 
from the appellant being of3.7.I999. Ultimately, the respondent after serving 
G a notice dated 27.10.2000 on the appellant filed on 5.7.2001 a complaint under 
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant did not dispute the factual 
position but resisted the claim on the grounds (i) that the complaint was barred 
under s.10 of the Act as the respondent did not issue a notice under s.10 
about loss of consignment within the specified time; (ii) that the complaint 
H 
1082 
-
f-
TRANSPORT CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.''· VEUAN HYDRAIR LTD. 
J 083 
was barred by limitation under s.24-A of the Act; and (iii) that since the A 
respondent did not pa,y the freight charges, there was no 'consideration' for 
the contract of 'service' and as such appellant was not liable to pay any amount 
either towards loss of consignment or as damages on the ground of deficiency 
in service. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the 
claim. After unsuccessfully approaching the National Consumer Disputes B 
Redressal Commission, the 'common carrier' filed the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Where the common carrier informs the person entitled to 
delivery (consignor/consignee/owner) that the consignment is being traced 
and process of tracing it is still going on, and requests him to wait for the C 
consignment to be traced and delivered, but does not suhsequently inform him 
either about the loss of the consignment, or about its inability to trace and 
deliver the consignment, the claim by the consignor/consignee, will not be 
for loss or injury to goods but for non-delivery of goods. In such 
circumstances, it is not possible to attribute knowledge of 'loss' to the person 
instituting the action for non-delivery. The requirement relating to notice D 
within six months in Section 10 of the Carriage Act, 1865 will not apply to a 
claim based on such non-delivery. In fact Section JO does not use the word 
'non-delivery' of goods, but uses the words 'loss of, or injury to, goods'. A 
case of 'non-delivery' will become a case of 'loss' of consignment, only when 
the common carrier informs the consignor/consignee about the loss of the E 
consignment. In the instant case, the appellant-carrier did not inform the 
respondent that the goods were lost. Therefore, there was no need to issue a 
notice under section 10, and non-issue of such a notice did not invalidate the 
claim or the complaint. (Para 7 and 9) (1088-G-H; 1089-C-E( 
Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Associated Roadways, (2004) 11 SCC 545, held 
inapplicable. 
2.1. In the context of limitation with reference to a contract for carriage 
F 
of goods, the date of cause of action as envisaged by s.24-A of the Consumer 
Protection Act, 1986 may refer to the date on which the goods are entrusted, 
date of issue of consignment note, the date stipulated for delivery, the date of G 
deliv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.