The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in its order dated 27.01.1999, held that the appellant as a companymon carrier was the insurer of the goods in transit and if the goods have been damaged, the appellant was liable to respondents No.1 and 2 for negligence.
The appellant filed a revision but by the impugned order dated 18.02.2003 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal No.202 of 1999 before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its order dated 07.10.1999 held that there was numberlegal infirmity in the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, awarding the sum of Rs.3,60,131/ but took the view that levy of interest 18 per annum was penal and instead directed the appellant to pay interest 12 per annum on the amount of Rs.3,60,131/ from the date of filing of the companyplaint 02.03.1998 till the date of payment.
The respondents No.1 and 2 then filed Complaint No.101 of 1998 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, and their case in the companyplaint was that they had paid the price of the companysignment to respondent No.3 and were entitled to Rs.3,61,131/ towards the price of the monoblock pumps and damages of Rs.70,000/ , loss of profit Rs.14,000/ as well as companyt of Rs.5,000/ and interest 18 per annum on the amount claimed by them.
While the appellant was transporting the companysignment in a truck, there was an accident and the monoblock pumps were damaged.
The appellant resisted the claim companytending that the claim was number maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short the Act .
The District Consumer Disputes Forum, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,131/ along with interest 18 per annum from 01.04.1997 till the date of payment and Rs.500/ as companynsel fee and further sum of Rs.500/ as companyt of the case.
In the circumstances, the appellant returned the 198 damaged monoblock pumps to the respondent No.3.
The respondents No.1 and 2, therefore, did number take delivery of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps at Gwalior.
The facts very briefly are that the respondent No.3 booked a companysignment of monoblock pumps with the appellant for transportation from Coimbatore to respondents No.1 and 2 at Gwalior in March, 1997.
K. PATNAIK, J. 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.
