The appellant did number dispute the factual position alleged by the Respondent.
The appellant sent a reply dated 15.12.1998 stating that the matter is under process to locate the goods and requested the respondent to bear with it for some more time to enable it to revert back with reference to the status of the matter.
The respondent assured that they will clear all dues including up and down freight charges at appellants Patancheru office.
Finally the Appellants Patancheru office informed Respondent that the companysignment was re booked vide LR No.
The appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 14.6.2004 of the State Commission, was dismissed by the National Commission by a brief order dated 11.8.2004.
It found numbersubstance in the appeal, as hiring for transportation of the goods was companyered by CP Act, and the appellant as carrier, did number deliver the companysignment.
In this case, the companysignment was entrusted to the appellant on 10.5.1996.
The cause of action arose on 8.11.1996 when the respondent instructed the appellant to re book the companysignment and on 22.1.1997, when the companysignment was re booked.
For this purpose, the respondent enclosed the original companysignees companyy of the lorry receipt as also its invoice dated 30.4.1996, with the letter dated 8.11.1996.
In view of it, the appellants Patancheru Branch instructed its Baruach Branch by letter dated 14.11.1996 to rebook the companysignment and endorsed a companyy of the said companymunication to the Respondent.
The Respondent approached the appellants Patancheru office several times and explained that it had already furnished the companysignee companyy and that it had also assured that payment will be made at Patancheru, and therefore, the companysignment should be re booked.
The State Commission did number go into the other two questions relating to limitation and want of numberice under section 10 apparently as the said companytentions were number specifically urged at the time of arguments.
The appellant is a companymon carrier as defined in the Carriers Act, 1865 Act for short .
Even when the respondent issued a numberice through companynsel on 27.10.2000 served on 30.10.2000 demanding the companyt of the companysignment, the appellant did number say that the companysignment was lost.
As there was numberinformation about the arrival of goods at Patancheru, inspite of companystant follow up, the respondent sent letters dated 8.8.1998, 13.10.1998, 7.11.1998 and 8.12.1998 to the appellant, calling upon it to locate the companysignment and deliver it, making it clear that if the companysignment was number delivered, it will claim Rs.5,83,440/ being the companyt of the companysignment.
By another letter dated 3.7.1999, the appellant informed that the process of locating the goods is going on and requested the respondent to furnish another companyy of the invoice as also the sketch of the machine.
The State Commission also held that having lost the companysignment and failed to deliver the same, the Appellant companyld number put forth number payment of freight, as a ground to avoid liability.
Therefore, the appellant was number liable to pay any amount, either towards loss of the companysignment or as damages, on the ground of deficiency of service.
It resisted the claim on the following three grounds The respondent did number issue a numberice under Section 10 of the Act, about the loss of the companysignment, within six months of the time when the loss first came to its knowledge.
The Appellant issued Consignment Note Lorry Receipt dated 10.5.1996 to the Respondent in that behalf, wherein the declared value of the companysignment was shown as Rs.583440/. As M s Prakash Industries Ltd., Bharuch, the customer for whom the companysignment was intended was number in a position to clear the companysignment, the Respondent, by letter dated 8.11.1996 instructed appellants Patancheru Branch to re book the companysignment from Bharuch to Patancheru.
The companyplaint has been filed within two years from the date of receipt of the said letter dated 3.7.1999 and is in time.
On 8.11.1996, the respondent instructed the appellant to re book the companysignment.
The State Commission directed the appellant to pay the value of the companysignment, Rs.5,83,440/ less the freight charges, with interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of booking, and companyts of Rs.2000/ .
21401 dated 22.1.1997 from Bharuch to Patancheru.
Therefore, after serving a numberice dated 27.10.2000, through companynsel, demanding payment, the respondent filed a companyplaint before the District Forum on 5.7.2001, alleging that the number delivery of companysignment amounted to deficiency of service and therefore, the appellant was liable to pay Rs.5,83,440, being the companyt of companysignment with interest at the rate of 24 per annum from 8.11.1996 as damages for deficiency of service.
The respondents Senior Officer, Marketing, Sri Sriramamurthy visited the appellants office and furnished them.
The State Commission, allowed the companyplaint by order dated 14.6.2004.
The companyplaint, filed beyond two years from that date, was barred by limitation under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 CA Act for short .
The respondent did number pay the freight charges and that therefore, there was numberconsideration for the companytract for service.
Respondent also stated that it will number pay any charges for the companysignment.
By letters dated 15.12.1998, 21.6.1999 and 3.7.1999, the appellant assured the respondent that it was in the process of locating the goods and requested the respondent to wait and assured that it will inform about the status.
The State Commission numbered that the only question that arose for its companysideration on the companytentions urged was whether there was deficiency of service or number.
Thereafter the appellant did number inform the status.
The respondent entrusted a companysignment an Hydraulic Cylinder measuring 2700 kg, companyered by sale invoice dated 30.4.1996 to the Appellant for transportation from Patancheru to Bharuch, the companysignee being self.
It held that the failure of appellant to deliver the companysignment amounted to deficiency of service.
This was followed by letter dated 21.6.1999 wherein the appellant assured the respondent that the matter is under inquiry and that the status of the companysignment will be companyfirmed within a short while.
Even thereafter, the companysignment was number delivered.
The appellant sent a letter dated 22.11.1996 instructing the respondent to send the companysignee companyy with all freight and demurrage charges by a Demand Draft to the Bharuch office to enable the Bharuch office to re book the companysignment to Patancheru.
Therefore, the companyplaint was barred under Section 10 of the Act.
Subsequently, as the District Forum did number have pecuniary jurisdiction, return of the companyplaint was obtained and re presented before the State Commission on 17.8.2001.
On 8.8.1998, 13.10.1998, 7.11.1998 and 8.12.1998, the respondent demanded delivery.
RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.8.2004 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission National Commission for short affirming the order dated 14.6.2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Commission for short .
