1

Consumer Protection Act

on
Courier and Transport Services
Abuse of process of law - Complainant claimed an exaggerated claim of Rs. 2 crores for delay in delivery of
shipment It being an abuse of process of law Complaint is dismissed 2!1!"2# C$C 1%& '.C.
Act of God - Consignment sent through opposite party roadways destroyed due to fire - $lea of (ct of )od
causing spar*ing of electric wire cannot be accepted - 2!!!"2# C$C +,- ..$.
--Claim cannot be repudiated by merely raising a plea of (ct of )od when there is no title of evidence to prove the
plea - M/s. Standard Textile Mills v. Manager, Express Goods Service, 1&&% C$C 2%1 $b.
--Carriers is bound to compensate the consigner for loss caused to goods due to negligence of its staff unless loss
was caused by the act of )od 2!1!"1# C$C ,!, /.C.
0)oods sent through transport damaged during transit - $lea of (ct of )od without cogent evidence not available
to transporter - Capital Golden Transport Co. (M/s.) v. M/s. Mahajan Indstries !td., 1&&1"2# C$C 1!- 2r.
03oss of luggage - Complainant lost his luggage in air carrier due to gulf war - (ir India not liable as the loss was
due to (ct of )od - 1&&% C$C 1&1 '.C.
--4ransporter failed to prove that goods were destroyed by fire by (ct of )od - 4ransporter held liable to
compensate for loss - 2!!!"2# C$C 2-1 4.'.
Agents liability - 5.$. acted as an agent of transporter to arrange truc* for transportation - Complaint not
maintainable against him - 2!!,"1# C$C ,&2 6.$.
Amendment - Consumer 7ora can allow amendment of complaint even at appellate stage - 1&&&"2# C$C %+&
8elhi
--7ora is empowered to allow amendment of complaint even during pendency of appeal - 1&&&"1# C$C 9!% 8elhi
Apple price 5$ refused to pay price of apple consignment supplied by the complainant 4he plea that he was
liable to ma*e payment of actual owner of consignment who owned other amount to appellant Reason of denial of
payment not convincing 5$ directed to pay total price with interest : &; p.a. - 2!1!"%# C$C +&- 2.$.
Arbitration clause - <xistence of an arbitration clause in an agreement which is sub=ect of a complaint is no
bar to entertainment of a complaint under C.$. (ct - 2!!!"1# C$C 19& /.C.
Ashes of wife - (shes of complainant>s wife sent through courier not reached destination - 3iability reduced
from Rs 1+!!! to Rs 1!! only - 1&&9"1# C$C 22& '.C.
Auction of consignment - Respondents auctioned consignment of carpet after waiting for one year for
consignee who failed to ta*e delivery - Respondent not at fault - 2!!9"2# C$C ,%! '.C.
Bad motive - <mployees of 5$ gave an affidavit that consignment was not delivered to consignee after notice
4his fact not rebutted by the complainant Complainant>s motive to extract money should be discouraged - 2!!&"2# C$C
&- '.C.
Bill of lading 'ational Commission relied on pac*ing list of containers not reaching its destination ?ill of
lading should have been ta*en into consideration to determine loss of missing container 2!1!"1# C$C 1++ /.C.
Burden of proof - ?urden lies on complainant to prove the content of complaint regarding loss of share
certificate contained in envelope entrusted to Courier - 1&&1"2# C$C %1! 2r.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act - Complaint against 5$ for non delivery of consignment in time
Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground that limitation is not filed within one year prescribed by Carriage of
)oods by /ea (ct 1&2+ - 2!!&"%# C$C %9- /.C.
Carrier - Consignment of goods delivered by carrier without collecting lorry receipt - Carrier held liable for
deficiency in service - 2!!!"2# C$C +,& @ar.
0$osition of a carrier is that of a bailee - 2e is liable to pay for loss caused by his agent - 1&&&"1# C$C %9% 6.$.
04ransporter failed to deliver goods by its carrier - 2eld liable for deficiency in service - 2!!!"2# C$C 1++ '.C.
04ruc* carrying insured eggs met with an accident damaging all eggs valued at Rs. 1!+!!! Complainant held
entitled to full claim with interest and compensation - 2!!!"2# C$C 29& ..$.
2
Carriers Act 4ransporter did not deliver goods to consignee nor returned to consignor without any
=ustification 8irected to compensate consignor $rovisions of Carriers (ct not applicable as it was not a case of loss or
in=ury to goods - 2!1!"%# C$C %99 '.C.
Carrier services - 1& items of household articles were damaged when truc* had caught fire - Compensation of
Rs. one la*h found to be =ustified - 2!!1"1# C$C +11 A.?engal
0Consignment could not be delivered to new consignee as directed by consigner due to non-payment of charges -
Carrier not liable for deficient service - 2!!2"1# C$C 1 /.C.
0Consignment wrongfully delivered to foreign buyer without production of any bill of lading - Carriers directed to
reimburse the loss suffered by complainant with 1; interest and cost - 2!!+"2# C$C ,&& '.C.
08elivery of consignment due to negligence of consignor who failed to ta*e reasonable step for delivery - Carrier
not liable for negligent service - 2!!+"1# C$C +!- '.C.
0)oods carried by carrier destroyed in fire accident - 8etails of facts about burning of goods not given - 5pposite
party liable to pay amount of goods with interest - 2!!2"2# C$C 2+ 8elhi
0)ross delay in delivery of (ir consignment containing seasonal goods - 5$ directed to compensate the
complainant for loss suffered by him - 2!!-"%# C$C 91 '.C.
0Consignment released without original documents - $rice of goods could not be collected by 5$ ?an* - Carrier is
liable to pay the amount for loss suffered by complainant - 2!!9"2# C$C +19 '.C.
0Carrier informed consignor that he was in process of locating goods for which consignor should wait - 'on issue
of notice of loss under Carrier (ct does not invalidate complaint - 2!!9"1# C$C +++ /.C.
--6achinery and plant not sent through the carriers as per option of complainant - 5$ held liable for in=ury caused to
goods during transit - Refund of price with interest directed - 2!!-"1# C$C 122 '.C.
0In the absence of necessary instructions consignment delivered without production of bill of lading - 'o
deficiency in service established - 2!!+"2# C$C %21 '.C.
Carriers fault - Consignment not delivered by Carrier - Carrier to pay compensation of Rs. &92&- - 2!!+"2#
C$C 1&& $b.
0Consignment sent through Carriers was ta*en away by its driver - Insurer compensating the Consignor can claim
it from Carrier - 1&&-"2# C$C ,21 '.C.
0/even cases of consignment were found missing - It was alleged that carrier>s driver was at fault but this plea was
not ta*en - Relief declined - 1&&-"2# C$C %91 $b.
--( carrier of goods cannot escape its liability for the damaged goods merely that consigning diverted the goods to
some other godown - 2!!!"2# C$C 1 /.C.
0'on delivery of consignment by carrier to consignee - Carrier directed to pay value of consignment with cost and
1; interest - 2!!%"1# C$C +92 6.$.
Carriers liability - )oods released by carrier without verification of fax letter causing huge loss to
complainant - Claim can not be repudiated on the ground that there was change of voyage of 6arine against terms of
policy - 2!!9"1# C$C 1-1 '.C.
--Carriers is bound to compensate the consigner for loss caused to goods due to negligence of its staff unless loss
was caused by the act of )od 2!1!"1# C$C ,!, /.C.
--(irlines released consignment to unauthoriBed person causing huge loss to the consignor 5$ (irlines
directed to compensate the complainant by refunding value of goods and refund of freight with interest and cost
- 2!!&"%# C$C ,1! '.C.
Civil !urisdiction - Consignment sent through transporter not reaching consignee - (llegation and counter
allegation made - $arties relegated to civil litigation - 1&&-"2# C$C 12- Chd.
Coffee seeds - 2!! bags of coffee seeds not reaching the consignee - 5pposite party transporter admitting value
of goods at Rs. - la*hs - Complainant entitled to Rs. - la*hs with 12; interest - 2!!1"1# C$C +19 4.'.
Commercial purpose - Complainant hired service of courier for commercial purpose - Consumer =urisdiction
is barred - Complaint dismissed - 2!!-"2# C$C %9& 6.$.
--Cloth meant for sale on profit if sent through transportation does not prove that consignment is for a commercial
purpose - 2!!+"2# C$C 1%, .ttaranchal
0Complainant doing export business of garments - Complaint regarding non-delivery of consignment - 4ransaction
of commercial nature - Complainant is not a Consumer - 2!!+"1# C$C 29, @ar.
%
08eficiency in service for nondelivery of consignment by carrier to consignee proved - $lea of transportation of
goods for commercial purpose not tenable - 2!!%"1# C$C +92 6.$.
04ransporter failed to send vehicles to carry consignment despite payment - 4ransaction of commercial nature -
Complaint not maintainable under Consumer $rotection (ct - 2!!,"1# C$C ,11 ..$.
Commission agent - Commission agent not charging any commission for consignment - 'o relief can be
claimed for loss of consignment - 1&&+"2# C$C +21 '.C.
Common carrier - Complainant>s consignment of goods destroyed in fire - 5wner of public carrier held liable
to pay compensation of Rs. 1!,1,,. - 1&&1"1# C$C ,!! '.C.
0Consignment of sil* sarees sent through common carrier found short at the time of delivery - 5$ directed to pay
Rs. 11-++! with 11; interest - 2!!2"2# C$C 1%% '.C.
Compensation - 8ocuments sent through courier service lost in transit - (ctual loss of Rs. 1!!!! allowed -
1&&&"1# C$C 2+& )oa
--(ppellant delivered goods without release of bills and )Rs etc. causing loss to respondent (ppellant directed to
pay loss of goods Rs. -9-2& - 3ess payment already made - 2!!&"%# C$C ++9 $b.
--Clause of contract limited liability of courier service were written in very small letters which could not be
understood by the complainant )oods not delivered to the addressee 5$ to pay price of goods 2!1!"1# C$C +&1
2.$.
0Compensation for loss of goods during transit should be determined by ta*ing into view value of goods and
mar*eting factors - 2!!,"1# C$C 12- @er.
0Complainant claimed crores of rupees alleging that he failed to get huge order due to loss of consignment -
Contention without force - Rs. -1!! awarded as compensation - 1&&,"2# C$C 91 '.C.
0Complainant was awarded reasonable interest on compensation amount - <nhancement of compensation not
=ustified - Capital Golden Transport Co. v. M/s. Mahajan Indstries !td., 1&&1"2# C$C 1!- 2r.
0Complainant was deprived of value of goods sent to consignee through ban* - ?an* directed to pay compensation
with 1-; interest - 2!!!"2# C$C ,,9 ..$.
0Consignment not delivered by Carrier - Carrier to pay compensation of Rs. &92&- - 2!!+"2# C$C 1&& $b.
--Consignment of fabric damaged in rain (lleged omission on the part of employee is no defence against loss
caused to goods Compensation with 1!; interest and costs allowed - 2!1!"2# C$C %2& '.C.
0Consignment of four boxes was lost during transit - 5.$. directed to compensate the complainant for the loss -
2!!1"1# C$C +1 '.C.
0Consignment of goods not delivered to consignee for along period of one year - 4ransporter directed to pay its
cost with interest - 1&&-"1# C$C %&, $b.
0Consignment of goods not reached its destination - Insurer held liable to pay compensation determined by
surveyor - "a#ar Steel $orgings (M/s.) v. %e& India 'ssrance Co. !td., 2!!1"1# C$C 1-2 Chd.
--Consignment sent through courier was not delivered to complainant 2eld entitled to value of goods i.e. Rs.
1,2!! - Compensation is not confined to Rs. 1!! mentioned in the consignment note - 2!1!"2# C$C 11+ 2.$.
--Consignment sent through courier was not delivered to complainant 2eld entitled to value of goods i.e. Rs.
1,2!! - Compensation is not confined to Rs. 1!! mentioned in the consignment note - 2!1!"2# C$C 11+ 2.$.
0Consignment valued Rs. 1+29,11 not delivered - 5.$. directed to pay price of goods with 1-; interest and cost
Rs. 1!!!! - 2!!,"1# C$C ,%% '.C.
0Consignment was released without bill of lading causing loss to consigner - 5.$. directed to pay compensation for
deficiency in service with interest and cost - 2!!,"2# C$C %+! '.C.
0Consignment wrongfully delivered to foreign buyer without production of any bill of lading - Carriers directed to
reimburse the loss suffered by complainant with 1; interest and cost - 2!!+"2# C$C ,&& '.C.
08emand of compensation for loss of future business due to damaged consignment is too remote to be
compensated - 2!!2"2# C$C 2-1 '.C.
0)oods sent through transporter damaged proving deficiency in service - Compensation of Rs. ,!!!! with &;
interest =ustified - 2!!,"2# C$C 1-% '.C.
--)oods worth Rs. 12+,!!C- sent through courier were never delivered to consignee Receipt with condition not
signed by any authoriBed person 5$ to pay price of goods with &; interest Compensation not confined to Rs. 1!!C-
with cost only 5rder modified 2!11"1# C$C %+% 2.$.
0Insured truc* with consignment damaged due to negligence of driver - 5wner of truc* directed to pay Rs.
11!!!! as value of goods to the complainant - 2!!-"1# C$C ,+% '.C.
03etter sent by complainant was not affixed with sufficient stamp resulting in refusal thereof by addressee -
Courier service directed to pay Rs. 2+!!! as compensation - 2!!!"2# C$C ,12 6.$.
,
03etter sent through courier did not reach in time - Compensation at Rs. 1!!! =ustified in stead of actual loss -
(ost)aster General, "as)pati, Shi)la v. Mani# Modgil, 2!!9"1# C$C 91 2.$.
--3oss of bag weighing 1+ *g $ayment should be made at Rs. 2!!C- per *g under rules Compensation
also reduced from 1!!!!C- to Rs. +!!!C- only - 2!!&"2# C$C ++& @ar.
03oss of consignment due to fault of 5.$. - Dalue of consignment Rs. 11-&22 to be paid with 1!; interest -
2!!+"1# C$C 21! 6aha.
--6onitor and *eyboard sent through courier service received in damaged condition by the addressee Receipt terms
not signed by the complainant 4erms of receipt have no binding effect on the complaint 5$ directed to pay
compensation of Rs. &!!! - 2!1!"%# C$C &+ Ra=.
--'ational Commission was not =ustified in awarding rupee eEuivalent of 1-!! ./F - Compensation of
111.19 /pecial 8rawing Rights per pac*age is =ustified under relevant Rules 2!1!"1# C$C 1++ /.C.
0'on delivery of consignment due to negligence of (irlines - Complainant entitled to &,! ./F with +!!! costs -
2!!2"1# C$C 2-1 '.C.
0'on delivery of consignment on vague ground of non payment of fright - 5.$. directed to ma*e payment of
consignment with interest - 2!!1"2# C$C 219 '.C.
05il tins sent through tempo owned by 5$ damaged causing spillage of oil - 5$ directed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,2%
with cost - *.+. Transport ,nion (M/s.) v. M/s -ate .a) /) (ar#as /ils (() !td. 2!!%"1# C$C 91 Chd.
--5$ failed to intimate immediately that consignment was detained by the /ales 4ax 8epartment 5$ directed to
pay Rs. 1!!!!!C- as compensation with 1+; p.a. interest 2!1!"1# C$C 9%% '.C.
0$arcel containing blood sample delivered to wrong laboratory - 5pposite party directed to pay Rs. +!!! as
compensation - 2!!,"2# C$C 2,1 )u=.
0$arcel containing voucher of Rs. 9!!! delivered after ten days instead of normal period of 2-% days -
Compensation not confined to Rs. 1!! only - (mount of Rs. 9!!! awarded with interest and cost - '#ash ,d0og v. /n
-ot Corier 1 Cargo !td. 2!!-"1# C$C ,%9 2.$.
--Respondent transporter detained consignment of goods sent by complainant falsely stating that he had paid penalty
of Rs. 1!!! as <xcise duty Respondent directed to release consignment sub=ect to payment of freight octori etc. with
compensation of Rs. 1+!!! - 2!!&"%# C$C %!& 2.$.
0/hort supply of consignment containing sarees to consignee - 5$ directed to pay Rs. %!+2+ with &; interest as
compensation - /ection 1 of the (ct not applicable - 2!!1"2# C$C +!2 6.$.
0/ix bundles of cloth lost during transit - 4ransporter liable to pay cost of cloth i.e. Rs. 11+!2! with Rs. 21+!! as
cost and compensation - 2!!+"2# C$C 1%, .ttaranchal
04he award of compensation cannot exceed the liabilities mentioned in the terms of contract - 2!!!"2# C$C 1-9
Chd.
--4ransporter failed to prove that goods were destroyed by fire by (ct of )od - 4ransporter held liable to
compensate for loss - 2!!!"2# C$C 2-1 4.'.
--.ndue delay "% days# in delivery of article - Compensation of Rs. 1!! raised to Rs. 2!!! - 2!!,"2# C$C 119 6.$.
0Dalue of consignment mentioned as Rs. , lacs - 3oss cannot be limited to Rs. 1!! as indicated in the conditions -
(ward of Rs.1,9!!! with interest upheld - 2!!1"2# C$C ,!, '.C.
0Ahere interest is allowed as compensation award of other compensation is not necessary - Shri .a) Transport
Co)pan0 v. Goel Traders 1&&&"1# C$C +1- 6.$.
Complainant - (fter obtaining letter of subrogation and )$( consignor and insurer filed a complaint against
the transporter - Complainant not covered by definition of consumer - Complaint dismissed - 2!!9"1# C$C 12 '.C.
0Insurer after payment of claim was given a letter of subrogation by consignor - Complaint by insurer not
maintainable as there was no hiring of services of 5$ - 2!!1"2# C$C 1-& '.C.
--Goint complaint by complainant along with his insurer is maintainable against the transporter for loss of
consignment - 1&&+"1# C$C %!2 )u=.
0Goint complaint by consignor and insurer of consignment after obtaining letter of subrogation held not
maintainable as complainants are not consumer - 2!!9"1# C$C ,29 '.C.
Complainants fault - 'o privity of contract between complainant and 5.$. - Complaint not maintainable
under Consumer $rotection (ct - 2!!,"1# C$C ,&2 6.$.
Complicated matter - Consignment sent through transporter not reaching consignee - (llegation and counter
allegation made - $arties relegated to civil litigation - 1&&-"2# C$C 12- Chd.
Computer damaged 6onitor and *eyboard sent through courier service received in damaged condition by
+
the addressee Receipt terms not signed by the complainant 4erms of receipt have no binding effect on the complaint
5$ directed to pay compensation of Rs. &!!! - 2!1!"%# C$C &+ Ra=.
Consignee as consumer - Carrier - )oods sent through carrier damaged in transit - Consignee is competent
to file a complaint - (atel .oad&a0s !td. v. .. 'roc#ia .ani, 2!!,"1# C$C 12- @er.
Consignment - 2!! bags of coffee seeds not reaching the consignee - 5pposite party transporter admitting
value of goods at Rs. - la*hs - Complainant entitled to Rs. - la*hs with 12; interest - 2!!1"1# C$C +19 4.'.
0- out of 12 cartons of sarees entrusted with (ir India were found missing - (ir India directed to pay the price of
goods with Rs. % la*hs as compensation - 1&&-"1# C$C 219 '.C.
0( transporter cannot evade his responsibility by asserting that goods were carried by truc* owned by third party -
1&&9"1# C$C +%% 6.$.
--Consignment of sugar loaded at ?areilly but could not be delivered to consignee at /iliguri /iliguri 7orum has
territorial =urisdiction to decide the dispute where cause of action has partly arisen - 2!1!"2# C$C 2&1 '.C.
--(bout ++&.1! meters of clothes transported through consigner was found damaged - Compensation of Rs. 19!+2
with 12; interest awarded by 8istrict 7orum to complainant =ustified - 2!!2"2# C$C %-- A.?engal
0(n (ir Carrier lifting the consignment not obliged to inform a consignor about his statutory duties - It is not liable
for detention of consignment due to fault of consignor - 2!!2"1# C$C ++, '.C.
--(ward of Rs. 1!! with cost Rs. +!! for loss of consignment in terms of agreement - (ward =ustified -
<nhancement declined - See)a Gpta (S)t.) v. M/s. +la2e $lash Coriers ((rivate) !i)ited, 2!!,"2# C$C ++& Chd.
0Carrier - )oods sent through carrier damaged in transit - Consignee is competent to file a complaint - (atel
.oad&a0s !td. v. .. 'roc#ia .ani, 2!!,"1# C$C 12- @er.
0(ppellant delivered goods without release of bills and )Rs etc. causing loss to respondent (ppellant directed to
pay loss of goods Rs. -9-2& - 3ess payment already made - 2!!&"%# C$C ++9 $b.
--Complainant suffered loss due to short delivery of consignment Insurer directed to pay total sum of Rs.
1%1-&2! with 1!; interest instead of Rs. %2!+-% offered by insurer - 2!!&"2# C$C 191 '.C.
--4ransporter did not deliver goods to consignee nor returned to consignor without any =ustification 8irected to
compensate consignor $rovisions of Carriers (ct not applicable as it was not a case of loss or in=ury to goods - 2!1!"%#
C$C %99 '.C.
0Consignment not reached the destination in prescribed time Respondent is liable for omission of his agent and
should compensate the appellant - 2!1!"2# C$C 1 /.C.
0Consignment of fabric damaged in rain (lleged omission on the part of employee is no defence against loss
caused to goods Compensation with 1!; interest and costs allowed - 2!1!"2# C$C %2& '.C.
0Consignment weighing &,1! *gs. was delivered to consignee which was short by %%+ *gs 5$ directed to pay
value of lost goods with 1+; p.a. interest and cost Rs. 2!!! 2!!&"1# C$C &- '.C.
0<mployees of 5$ gave an affidavit that consignment was not delivered to consignee after notice 4his fact not
rebutted by the complainant Complainant>s motive to extract money should be discouraged - 2!!&"2# C$C &- '.C.
05$ failed to intimate immediately that consignment was detained by the /ales 4ax 8epartment 5$ directed to
pay Rs. 1!!!!!C- as compensation with 1+; p.a. interest 2!1!"1# C$C 9%% '.C.
0Respondent transporter detained consignment of goods sent by complainant falsely stating that he had paid
penalty of Rs. 1!!! as <xcise duty Respondent directed to release consignment sub=ect to payment of freight octori etc.
with compensation of Rs. 1+!!! - 2!!&"%# C$C %!& 2.$.
0Arong delivery of consignment due to wrong address noted by the employee Cargo agent and carrier both are
=ointly and severally liable for loss - 2!1!"2# C$C 2-- '.C.
0Case of non delivery of consignment cannot be decided without impleadment of consignee - ..%. Garg v. M/s.
Sood Goods Transport Co)pan0 (.egd.), 2!!%"1# C$C ,%1 Chd.
0Complainant failed to prove loss of consignment by cogent evidence - 8elivery of consignment to named person
proved by 5$ - Relief declined to complainant - 2!!1"2# C$C 1-& '.C.
0Complaint failed to prove delivery of consignment without receiving lorry receipt by transporter. 'o case of
deficient service made out against transporter - 1&&-"1# C$C 199 4.'.
0Consignee refused to ta*e delivery of goods - ReEuest for Re-shipment was not accepted as letter in this regard
was delayed - 'o case of deficiency in service is made out - 2!!1"1# C$C 1+, '.C.
0Consignment being a small Euantities not delivered to consignee - 4ransporter to pay value of goods with
compensation - 2!!,"1# C$C ,,1 Chhatisgarh
0Consignment damaged due to use of unsuitable pac*ing material - Claim decided as per surveyor>s report -
7urther relief declined - 2!!,"2# C$C 11% '.C.
1
0Consignment damaged during transit - 'o privity of contract between parties - Relief declined - 2!!,"1# C$C ,&2
6.$.
0Consignment delivered wrongly to consignee without differentiating between 6odern /aree <mporium and
6odern /aree Centre - 4ransporter to compensate consignor with 1-; interest - 1&&-"2# C$C 11, $b.
0Consignment not delivered to consignee as agreed - 8isputed Euestion about Euantum of loss raised - Relief may
be got from civil court - 1&&1"2# C$C 19, '.C.
--Consignment not reached its distinction - 4ransporter held liable to pay value of consignment with interest -
1&&&"1# C$C ++, )u=.
0Consignment of designer pots reached its destination in damaged condition - 5$ directed to pay the loss with 12;
interest and cost to the exporter - 2!!2"2# C$C 11, Chd.
0Consignment of four boxes was lost during transit - 5.$. directed to compensate the complainant for the loss -
2!!1"1# C$C +1 '.C.
0Consignment of goods damaged to the extent of 9!; during transportation - 4ransporter held liable to compensate
- 1&&+"2# C$C ,&+ (.$.
0Consignment of goods delivered by carrier without collecting lorry receipt - Carrier held liable for deficiency in
service - 2!!!"2# C$C +,& @ar.
0Consignment of goods not delivered at the desired place but at another place - 5pposite $arty held liable for
deficient service causing loss to complainant - 2!!,"2# C$C 1!& C.).
0Consignment of goods not delivered to consignee for a long period of one year - 4ransporter directed to pay its
cost with interest - 1&&-"1# C$C %&, $b.
0Consignment of goods reached to addressee - Consignee and consignor failed to ta*e delivery of goods -
4ransporter not liable for deficiency in service - "... Golden Carrier v. Shri +anarsi -ass 1&&9"2# C$C 111 $b.
0Consignment of goods sent through commission agent not reached destination - Commission agent held liable for
compensation - 2!!!"2# C$C ,%! 6.$.
0Consignment of goods sent through opposite party not delivered to consignee - 5pposite party held liable for
committing deficiency in service - 1&&+"1# C$C 1%1 4.'.
0Consignment of goods sent through transporter carrier did not reach the destination - ( sum of Rs. 11,9+! with
19; interest granted to complainant - 1&&&"1# C$C +1- 6.$.
0Consignment of oil damaged during transit insurer paid the claim and obtain a letter of subrogation from insured -
Insurer entitled to claim paid to the insured with cost and interest - 2!!!"1# C$C ,,1 8elhi
0Consignment of pro=ect was not delivered to addressee - 5pposite $arty held liable for deficiency in service -
2!!,"2# C$C ,,, /i**im
0Consignment sent through Carriers was ta*en away by its driver - Insurer compensating the Consignor can claim
it from Carrier - 1&&-"2# C$C ,21 '.C.
--Consignment sent through opposite party roadways destroyed due to fire - $lea of (ct of )od causing spar*ing of
electric wire cannot be accepted - 2!!!"2# C$C +,- ..$.
0Consignment sent through 4ransport Carrier was not collected by consignee - 4ransporter not bound to return
goods by reboo*ing to consignor in the absence of a contract to that effect - 1&&&"2# C$C ,19 $b.
0Consignment sent through transporter not delivered to consignee nor it was returned bac* - Respondent directed to
pay Rs. 2121+ with 1-; interest with compensation of Rs. +!!! - 1&&&"1# C$C ,+! $b.
0Consignment sent to ./( redelivered to complainant in damaged condition - Respondent is liable to pay Rs.
+1!!! with 12; interest as value of article - 2!!2"2# C$C 2-1 '.C.
0Consignment was released without bill of lading causing loss to consigner - 5.$. directed to pay compensation for
deficiency in service with interest and cost - 2!!,"2# C$C %+! '.C.
0Consignment was sent to its destination - Consignee did not ta*e delivery despite information to avoid octrio duty
- 4ransporter not liable for loss of consignment - 1&&-"2# C$C +29 $b.
0Consignment was to be delivered on 1+.11.&1 but certificate of non delivery was issued on 2-.,.&2 - Complaint
filed on 1-.2.1&&, is within limitation - 2!!2"1# C$C 2-1 '.C.
0Consignment wrongfully delivered to foreign buyer without production of any bill of lading - Carriers directed to
reimburse the loss suffered by complainant with 1; interest and cost - 2!!+"2# C$C ,&& '.C.
0Consignments not reaching the destination - Complainant is entitled to reasonable relief - 1&&1"2# C$C ,%, '.C.
0Content of consignment described as HdocumentI and not Helectronic goodsI - Compensation to be given for
HdocumentI - 1&&,"2# C$C -1 '.C.
08elivery of consignment of goods without production of original copy of lorry receipts - 5$ liable for deficiency
in service - 2!!-"2# C$C %,1 '.C.
9
08elivery of consignment without authenticity of delivery note - 5.$. directed to pay a sum eEual to value of
shipment with compensation and 12; interest - 2!!,"2# C$C 12, '.C.
08elivery of consignment without receipt - 8isputed Euestion of payment raised - Case cannot be decided under
C.$. (ct - 2!!%"1# C$C 2,2 Chd.
--8isputed Euestion regarding delivery of consignment involved in the case - Remedy lies in Civil Court - 1&&1"2#
C$C +-! '.C.
0)oods covered under 6arine 75? $olicy sent through rail damaged in transit - Insurance company directed to
pay 9+; claim as non standard claim - 2!!-"2# C$C ,+ '.C.
0)oods delivered by 4ransport (gency without obtaining documents of title - 4ransporter held liable to
compensate the complainant - 1&&9"2# C$C 2%2 '.C.
0)oods delivered by transporter to unauthorised person - Consignee held entitled to compensation of Rs. +!2!2+
with 12; interest - 1&&1"1# C$C 12- Ra=.
0)oods receipt 2undi for Rs. &91,+ entrusted to ?an* - ?an* not liable for price of goods for delay in delivery
thereof to consignee - Compensation and cost of Rs. 9!!! =ustified - 2!!%"1# C$C 1,! $b.
0)oods released by carrier without verification of fax letter causing huge loss to complainant - Claim cannot be
repudiated on the ground that there was change of voyage of 6arine against terms of policy - 2!!9"1# C$C 1-1 '.C.
0)oods sent through transporter were stolen by his employees - 4ransporter held liable for deficiency - 1&&+"1#
C$C %!2 )u=.
0Insurance company who had =oined the consigner while suing the carrier is a consumer Eua carrier - 1&&1"2# C$C
199 '.C.
0Insured consignment alleged to be damaged were returned to consigner - Return of goods was found due to
unsuitability of mar*et - Repudiation of claim =ustified - 2!!+"2# C$C +1& '.C.
0Insured consignment found to be short of weight to the extent of %%+ @gs. - Insurer directed to compensate the
consignee - 2!!!"1# C$C 9- $b.
0Insured consignment lost in transit - Complainant entitled to price of consignment with interest and costs -
3445(6) C(C 577 M.(.
03oss of - )oods ta*en away by miscreants by force in transit - 8river and cleaner not liable for loss of goods -
1&&&"1# C$C +92 6aha.
03oss of consignment due to fault of 5.$. - Dalue of consignment Rs. 11-&22 to be paid with 1!; interest -
2!!+"1# C$C 21! 6aha.
03oss of pac*age before inspection - (irport authority and Custom authority held not liable for loss - 1&&+"2# C$C
,&1 '.C.
03oss to consignment was not due to the negligence of transporter - Complainant not entitled to any relief -
1&&1"2# C$C 11, '.C.
--5.$. failed to refute allegation of complainant Eua impairment of cloths of consignment - 5$ directed to refund
price with &; interest - 2!!%"1# C$C ,!& Chd.
--'o complaint about damaged goods made at the time of delivery - 4ransporter not liable for deficiency in service -
2!!,"2# C$C 1- Ra=.
0'on delivery on consignment as per terms of agreement - Consignee to pay value of goods with 1-; interest -
2!!,"1# C$C ,%% '.C.
05.$. delivered consignment to unauthoriBed person without receiving payment - Complainant entitled to price of
consignment with 1!; interest - 2!!+"1# C$C 2, '.C.
05b=ection against final settlement of claim with immediate effect - 5.$. to pay Rs. 1+1%!22 with 12; and cost
for missing bags of consignment - 2!!%"2# C$C %,% '.C.
05nce consignment has been delivered to Custom (uthorities shipper is not liable for non delivery of consignment
to consignee - 2!!-"1# C$C 11- '.C.
05$ 'o. 1 and 5$ 'o.2 were held liable =ointly and severally for wrong delivery of consignment - 5$ 'o.1 acting
as agent of 5.$. 'o.2 cannot be held liable for negligence - 2!!-"1# C$C ,!1 '.C.
0Reason for goods being seiBed at chec* post not given - 4ransporter liable to pay compensation to complainant -
1&&,"2# C$C ,&2 @ar.
0Respondent failed to clear the consignment from port as agreed causing loss to complainant>s goods - 2eld liable
to pay Rs. 221,,&1 with 1-; interest - 1&&1"2# C$C +,- '.C.
0/ervice of 5.$. for delivery of consignment hired in Gune 1&&+ which were delivered in /eptember 1&&+ - 'o
demand for compensation raised for delayed delivery by consignee - 5.$. not liable for deficiency in service - 2!!+"2#
C$C 92+ '.C.
-
0/hort supply of consignment containing sarees to consignee - 5$ directed to pay Rs. %!+2+ with &; interest as
compensation - /ection 1 of the (ct not applicable - ,nion o8 India v. M/s "othari Sons 2!!1"2# C$C +!2 6.$.
04ransporter cannot escape his liability for loss of goods simply that Insurance Company had paid the claim -
2!!1"1# C$C 9% '.C.
04ransporter delivered goods without obtaining )R from consignee - 2eld liable for loss of goods - 1&&9"2# C$C
2,, '.C.
04ransporter failed to deliver goods to consignee held liable to compensate the complainant consignor - 1&&,"2#
C$C 2++ 4.'.
--4ransporter failed to deliver the goods to consignee - 2eld liable to pay Rs. -!9+ with 1+; interest to consignor -
1&&1"1# C$C 1%& $b.
04ransporter failed to prove occurrence of fire causing loss to consignment - 2eld liable to pay cost of consignment
with interest - 1&&1"2# C$C 2!, '.C.
04ransporter is bound to ma*e safe delivery of goods unless prevented by (ct of )od or /tate enemy - Se&a#
Transport Co)pan0 v. Sh. -arshan Singh 2!!%"1# C$C 1+1 Chd.
0.ndue delay in delivery of consignment resulting in huge loss - 4ransporter directed to compensate the consigner
- 2!!1"2# C$C %,1 Chd.
0.ndue delay in delivery of consignment resulting loss in business - 8eficiency in service stands proved -
Consignor held entitled to compensation - 1&&&"2# C$C %1 4.'.
0.ndue delay in release of consignment of @nitting machine despite furnishing of necessary documents - 5$
rightly directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1!-+1 with interest - 2!!9"1# C$C 11% '.C.
0Aoolen @nitwear exported through (irways which was delivered with abnormal delay - (irway service held
liable for deficiency in service - 2!!-"%# C$C 91 '.C.
Consignment delivery - Claimant failed to prove basic fundamental averments including non delivery of
goods or loss of goods during transit - Insurer not liable to deficiency in service - 2!!-"2# C$C 1!% /.C.
0Consignment of goods delivered to consignee without getting necessary documents released from ban* -
4ransporter directed to pay value of goods with 1+; interest - 2!!2"1# C$C +,, '.C.
08elivery of consignment due to negligence of consignor who failed to ta*e reasonable step for delivery - Carrier
not liable for negligent service - 2!!+"1# C$C +!- '.C.
Consignment loss - Consignment released without original documents - $rice of goods could not be collected
by 5$ ?an* - Carrier is liable to pay the amount for loss suffered by complainant - 2!!9"2# C$C +19 '.C.
--Consignment worth Rs. 1&+-!! lost in transit - Claim granted by Insurance Company which was not disclosed to
7orm for obtaining double benefit - 5rder Euashed - Case remanded - 2!!9"2# C$C &+ 6.$.
05nly 2 out of + consignments were redelivered - 4ransporter directed to pay its price with 1-; p.a. interest -
2!!1"1# C$C 191 $b.
--)oods worth Rs. 12+,!!C- sent through courier were never delivered to consignee Receipt with condition not
signed by any authoriBed person 5$ to pay price of goods with &; interest Compensation not confined to Rs. 1!!C-
with cost only 5rder modified 2!11"1# C$C %+% 2.$.
0Computer goods *ept in 5$ warehouse 5$ liable for non-traceable goods Complainant is a consumer and
entitled to recover loss of consignment with interest : &; p.a. - 2!1!"2# C$C ,%- 8elhi
05.$. sent consignment of goods through two lorries whose registration numbers were fa*e Consignment did not
reach destination 5.$. is bound to compensate the complainant - 2!!&"%# C$C 191 '.C.
05ne of the containers of consignment did not reach its destination Carrier held liable for deficiency in service
2!1!"1# C$C 1++ /.C.
Consignment note Consignment note not signed by the complainant Consignor is not bound by terms of
said note - 2!1!"2# C$C 11+ 2.$.
Consignment of file - 5rder based upon decision in similar case pending in the 2.C.- Complaint consigned to
be restored after decision of 2.C. - 1&&+"1# C$C ,!1 8elhi
Consignment of goods - Cargo delivered to purchaser without proper endorsement of documents air bill -
Respondent held liable for negligence - 1&&9"2# C$C +2- '.C.
0)oods sent through transporter damaged proving deficiency in service - Compensation of Rs. ,!!!! with &;
interest =ustified - 2!!,"2# C$C 1-% '.C.
0'on delivery of consignment by transporter due to non-payment of octroi duty by consignee - 4ransporter liable
for deficiency in service - 2!!,"2# C$C 91 C.).
&
Consignment reboo"ing - Consignment not delivered as consignee failed to ta*e delivery of goods - 5$ in
absence of any agreement is not bound to reboo* the goods - 2!!-"1# C$C 2+& '.C.
Consumer - ( consignee as well as a consigner of goods being beneficiary are covered under the definition of a
consumer - Goel .oad&a0s v. %ational Insrance Co. !td. 1&&9"1# C$C 11- $b.
0( courier not delivering the consignment - Consignor being consumer can claim relief against the former -
1&&+"1# C$C 1!1 4.'.
0( person who pays the charges for courier service is a Consumer under Consumer $rotection (ct - 2!!,"2# C$C
2,1 )u=.
--/ervices of couriers availed for commercial purpose Complainant is not a consumer - 2!!&"%# C$C 912
'.C.
05.$. under too* to delivered to consignment to consignee ban* which was ultimately to delivered to complainant -
Complainant is a consumer - 2!!9"2# C$C 1%2 '.C.
02iring of service of other party for consideration by a person ma*es him a consumer under the (ct - 1&&1"1# C$C
-& '.C.
Continuing wrong - /imply because stolen goods could not be recovered it cannot be said to be a continuing
wrong for computation of limitation - 1&&+"2# C$C %&% 2r.
Contract - Consumer agencies cannot award compensation in violation of terms of agreement between parties -
1&&9"2# C$C 1, /.C.
Contract of service - 6ere non-payment of consideration does not ma*e a contract for service free of charge -
3iability cannot be escaped on ground that freight charges were not paid - 2!!9"1# C$C +++ /.C.
Courier service - ( consignment containing computer hardware sent through courier was not delivered to
consignee - 3oss determined at Rs. %,2!!!! by arbitrator to be paid by courier with cost - 2!!2"2# C$C 1!9 '.C.
--( consignor not bound by condition printed on receipts of consignment issued by Courier but not signed by
consignor - 1&&&"1# C$C 1!- 6.$.
0( courier is liable to compensate for deficiency in service to the extent as mentioned in the terms of agreement -
1&&9"2# C$C 21& 4.'.
0( courier is not liable for deficiency in service exceeding the limits prescribed in the contract of parties - 1&&9"2#
C$C 1, /.C.
0( courier is not liable to pay more than a claim mentioned in the terms of contract - 1&&9"2# C$C 92 '.C.
0( pac*et containing shares certificate not reached the consignee - Complainant entitled to Rs. 2+!! as
compensation - 1&&% C$C 22+ 8elhi
0( parcel containing 1!! shares not reached the addressee - Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs.
%!!! - 1&&% C$C %19 4.'.
0(shes of complainant>s wife sent through courier not reached destination - 3iability reduced from Rs 1+!!! to
Rs 1!! only - 1&&9"1# C$C 22& '.C.
0(ward of Rs. 1!! with cost Rs. +!! for loss of consignment in terms of agreement - (ward =ustified -
<nhancement declined - 2!!,"2# C$C ++& Chd.
0?undle of clothes sent through courier service did not reach the destination - 5$ directed to pay compensation at
Rs. 1!!! instead of cost of the consignment of goods - 2!!-"2# C$C 9!& $b.
0?undle of /weater sent through courier service not delivered to addressee - 5pposite party directed to pay a sum
of Rs. 1!!! as compensation - 2!!1"2# C$C %9 $b.
--$ac*ets of medicines sent through courier services not delivered to addressee (warded of compensation with
cost allowed but not price of medicine due to lac* of insurance 2!!&"1# C$C &2 '.C.
0Clause limiting liability not signed by complainant - 5rdinary clause of liability would be applicable - 2!!-"1#
C$C 1%9 '.C.
--)oods worth Rs. 12+,!!C- sent through courier were never delivered to consignee Receipt with condition not
signed by any authoriBed person 5$ to pay price of goods with &; interest Compensation not confined to Rs. 1!!C-
with cost only 5rder modified 2!11"1# C$C %+% 2.$.
0Complainant did not describe the contents as valuable documents - Courier service not liable for loss of
documents - 1&&,"1# C$C 291 '.C.
0Complainant entitled to compensation for the loss of pac*age - 1&&1 C$C 1&1 '.C.
0Complainant failed to prove late delivery of envelope to addressee resulting in loss to him - Courier service not
proved to be deficient - 1&&+"1# C$C 11, 6.$.
1!
0Complainant failed to prove that envelope was lost in transit due to negligence of courier - Relief declined to
complainant - Snita .ani (S)t.) v. Cro&n Corier (() !td., 1&&1"2# C$C %1! 2r.
--Complainant lost one academic year due to non delivery of consignment - 5$ directed to pay Rs. +!!! to each
complainant - 2!!-"1# C$C &2 '.C.
--Clause of contract limited liability of courier service were written in very small letters which could not be
understood by the complainant )oods not delivered to the addressee 5$ to pay price of goods 2!1!"1# C$C +&1
2.$.
--Consignment sent through courier was not delivered to complainant 2eld entitled to value of goods i.e. Rs.
1,2!! - Compensation is not confined to Rs. 1!! mentioned in the consignment note - 2!1!"2# C$C 11+ 2.$.
--8elay 'ecessary documents with draft were sent to get admission in 6??/ .nderta*ing given for delivery in
12.-.2!!, delivered on 19.-.2!!, and he could not get admission 8eficiency in service proved Compensation of Rs.
+!!!! =ustified - 2!!&"%# C$C 1-% '.C.
--)ood sent through courier not reached to addressee 5$ liable to pay price of goods Condition of Rs. 1!!C-
being unilateral is not binding on claimant 2!1!"1# C$C 9%1 2.$.
--'on delivery of certificates Cover sent to 2yderabad instead to /onepat by mista*e Complainant>s wife could
not produce her certificates on the date of interview and not selected for =ob Compensation of Rs. %!!!!C- awarded by
8istrict 7orum =ustified - 2!!&"2# C$C 9!1 (.$.
0Complainant hired service of courier for commercial purpose - Consumer =urisdiction is barred - Complaint
dismissed - 2!!-"2# C$C %9& 6.$.
0Complainant lost one year in his educational carrier on account of non delivery of letter sent through courier held
entitled to Rs. -!!!! as compensation - 1&&1"2# C$C 1!! A.?engal
0Complainant suffered huge loss as the consigned goods did not reach in time - Courier service deficient -
Compensation of Rs. 12&&&2 was awarded to complainant - 1&&,"1# C$C 1%+ '.C.
0Consignment sent through transporter on complainant>s responsibility - Courier Company not liable to
compensate for loss - 1&&,"1# C$C 1%1 '.C.
0Consignor not bound by unreasonable conditions printed on the form of agreement - 1&&+"1# C$C 1!1 4.'.
--Courier containing an application for delivery at office of $ublic /ervice Commission reached beyond prescribed
date - 5$ directed to pay Rs.+!!! with cost instead of Rs.1!! only - 2!!1"2# C$C +% Chd.
08elay in delivery of consignment sent through Courier - 8eficiency in rendering service proved - 1&&,"1# C$C
1%9 '.C.
0<nvelope sent by complainant through courier service not sent in time - Respondent directed to pay Rs. 2!!! as
compensation - 1&&1"1# C$C 21% Ra=.
02earing aids pac*et sent through courier service not reached to destination - Respondent>s liability not to exceed
Rs. 1!! as printed on receipts - 1&&9"2# C$C ,1- Chd.
03etter sent by complainant was not affixed with sufficient stamp resulting in refusal thereof by addressee -
Courier service directed to pay Rs. 2+!!! as compensation - 2!!!"2# C$C ,12 6.$.
03etter sent through courier did not reach in time - Compensation at Rs. 1!!! =ustified in stead of actual loss -
2!!9"1# C$C 91 2.$.
03etter sent through courier service not delivered - $lea of wrong address not proved - Courier held liable for
deficiency in service - 2!!!"2# C$C 1-9 Chd.
03iability of courier Company cannot be eEuated to Euantum of misappropriated amount as alleged in the
complaint - 1&&+"2# C$C 192 '.C.
--3oss of envelope sent through courier - Compensation as per terms of contract at Rs. 1!! allowed - ')it .aheja v.
Madhr Corier Service, 1&&-"2# C$C 1& 2r.
0'o mention about valuable contents of consignment in Aay ?ill - 8egree of negligence of couriers mitigated -
1&&,"1# C$C 1%9 '.C.
0'o specific instructions as to whom letter should be delivered were given by sender - 8elivery of letter to
employees of addressee - Courier service cannot be blamed for it - 2!!1"2# C$C ,9! 2.$.
0'on delivery of consignment containing air tic*et - 3iability cannot be restricted Rs. 1!! ( sum of Rs. 1+!!
awarded with cost and 1-; interest =ustified - 2!!2"1# C$C 1%1 )oa
0'on delivery of consignment of seeds - 5$ directed to pa Rs. ,!!!! with &; p.a. interest with cost - 2!!-"1#
C$C %1, 2.$.
0'on delivery of letter sent through courier service - 3iability not limited to Rs. 1!! only as receipt not signed by
complainant - (ro8essional Corier Service v. '00a#ann 2!!+"2# C$C ,1 4.'.
11
0$arcel containing blood sample delivered to wrong laboratory - 5pposite party directed to pay Rs. +!!! as
compensation - 2!!,"2# C$C 2,1 )u=.
0$arcel containing voucher of Rs. 9!!! delivered after ten days instead of normal period of 2-% days -
Compensation not confined to Rs. 1!! only - (mount of Rs. 9!!! awarded with interest and cost - 2!!-"1# C$C ,%9 2.$.
0$arcel sent through courier not reaching the addressee nor returned to sender - Courier held liable to pay Rs. 1+!!
as compensation for loss of parcel - -es# To -es# Corier and Cargo !td. (M/s.) v. S)t. Tripat "ar, 1&&1"2# C$C 1-9
Chd.
0$remium receipts sent through courier did not reach the destination - 3iability limited to Rs. 1!! in receipt not
binding - 1&&-"2# C$C 191 (.$.
0Respondent-Courier failed to deliver the envelope to the addressee - 2eld guilty of deficiency in service - 1&&9"1#
C$C +2+ 4.'.
0.ndue delay "% days# in delivery of article - Compensation of Rs. 1!! raised to Rs. 2!!! - .aj Traders +alghat
(M/s.) v. .eliance Corier, +ranch /88icer, 2!!,"2# C$C 119 6.$.
0Daluable pac*age containing hearing aids not delivered to addressee - 3iabilities not limited to Rs. 1!! by
/pecial contract but to full amount of consignment - 2!!2"2# C$C - 4.'.
0Dalue of consignment mentioned as Rs. , lacs - 3oss cannot be limited to Rs. 1!! as indicated in the conditions -
(ward of Rs.1,9!!! with interest upheld - 2!!1"2# C$C ,!, '.C.
Couriers liability - Couriers liability cannot be restricted by terms of consignment note - 1&&-"2# C$C %& A.
?engal
#amages - 4he consigned goods contained in the parcel became useless due to delayed delivery - Complainant
must be compensated by the opposite party - 1&&2 C$C 19, '.C.
#eficiency in Service - Complaint failed to prove delivery of consignment without receiving lorry receipt by
transporter. 'o case of deficient service made out against transporter - 1&&-"1# C$C 199 4.'.
0Consignment of goods not delivered at the desired place but at another place - 5pposite $arty held liable for
deficient service causing loss to complainant - 2!!,"2# C$C 1!& C.).
--8elivery of goods - )oods were delivered to a wrong person and not to the complainantCconsignee - Complainant
must be compensated - 1&&2 C$C 21, '.C.
04ransport company is bound to compensate the complainant when he suffered huge loss due to non-delivery of
goods and had paid the transportation charges - 1&&1 C$C 11 '.C.
#elivery of consignment - Insured consignment duly delivered to consignee when insurance policy had
come to an end - Insurer thereafter cannot be held liable - 2!!1"2# C$C 92+ '.C.
#emurrage - $ort authorities charging demanding from petitioners for delay in lifting the goods - 'ot liable for
deficiency in service - 1&&9"1# C$C 1,9 '.C.
--$ort 4rust was =ustified to recover demmurage for delay in ta*ing delivery of consignment from port - 1&&9"1#
C$C ,!, '.C.
--Complaint instead of presenting )Rs and demurrage charges filed complaint which was withdrawn
subseEuently Complainant directed to execute bonds give )Rs and pay demurrage to transporter who will
release the goods - 2!!&"2# C$C 1+9 2.$.
#iscrepancy - Counsel changing statements regarding loss and liability - 'o reliance can be placed on the
statements - 1&&1"2# C$C +&, '.C.
$mployees error Arong delivery of consignment due to wrong address noted by the employee Cargo
agent and carrier both are =ointly and severally liable for loss - 2!1!"2# C$C 2-- '.C.
$mployers %iablity - (n employor is liable for negligent acts of his employee - 1&&&"1# C$C ++, )u=.
$rring officials - <nvelope sent to $aris instead to ./( due to mista*e of postal employee
Compensation should be recovered from erring employee - 2!!&"%# C$C 2&9 '.C.
$ssence of Contract - Consignment containing 4ractor $arts not delivered in time - 4ransporter directed to
pay Rs. 1,+21, with 12; interest to consigner as time was essence of contract - 2!!1"2# C$C %,1 Chd.
$vidence - Counsel changing statements regarding loss and liability - 'o reliance can be placed on the statements
- 1&&1"2# C$C +&, '.C.
$&aggerated claim Complainant claimed an exaggerated claim of Rs. 2 crores for delay in delivery of
shipment It being an abuse of process of law Complaint is dismissed 2!1!"2# C$C 1%& '.C.
12
$&ecution - 5rder against Carrier became final - 5b=ection against execution of order not maintainable - East
India Transport 'genc0 (M/s.) v. M/s. %a9ha Indstries !td., 2!!+"2# C$C 1&& $b.
$&porter - Consignment of designer pots reached its destination in damaged condition - 5$ directed to pay the
loss with 12; interest and cost to the exporter - 2!!2"2# C$C 11, Chd.
$&tent of %iability - ( party not clearly accepting terms of receipt issued by courier is not bound by terms of
liability - 2!!2"2# C$C 1!9 '.C.
02earing aids pac*et sent through courier service not reached to destination - Respondent>s liability not to exceed
Rs. 1!! as printed on receipts - 1&&9"2# C$C ,1- Chd.
0Daluable pac*age containing hearing aids not delivered to addressee - 3iabilities not limited to Rs. 1!! by
/pecial contract but to full amount of consignment - 2!!2"2# C$C - 4.'.
'a"e registration - 5.$. sent consignment of goods through two lorries whose registration numbers were fa*e
Consignment did not reach destination 5.$. is bound to compensate the complainant - 2!!&"%# C$C 191 '.C.
'raud 7raud perpetuated by respondents in delivery of consignment by forging bills of lading Respondents
held liable for deficiency in service in view of /ec. 2%% of Contract (ct - 2!1!"%# C$C +2+ '.C.
'urnace oil - /ale of furnace oil to complainant found to be a transaction of goods - <lement of service not
proved - Relief declined - 1&&% C$C %19 '.C.
Garments - Consignment of garments could not be delivered to the consignee due to embargo of import by
)overnment of ../.(. - Complainant not entitled to any relief - 1&&,"1# C$C ,1& '.C.
0Consignment of garments delivered to a wrong person - Case of deficiency is proved - 6atter not covered by
personal service - 1&&,"1# C$C 2,, 8elhi
--Respondent failed to deliver stitched garments in time to the complainant who suffered loss - Complainant held
entitled to refund of amount with 1-; interest - 1&&+"1# C$C &2 4.'.
(mpleadment - Case of non delivery of consignment cannot be decided without impleadment of consignee -
..%. Garg v. M/s. Sood Goods Transport Co)pan0 (.egd.), 2!!%"1# C$C ,%1 Chd.
0Consignment sent by commission agent not reached destination - Impleadment of owner and driver of tan*er not
necessary - 2!!!"2# C$C ,%! 6.$.
0<xecution uCs. 29 cannot be effected against a person not party to original order - 1&&-"1# C$C +9 ..$.
%etter of subrogation - (fter obtaining letter of subrogation and )$( consignor and insurer filed a
complaint against the transporter - Complainant not covered by definition of consumer - Complaint dismissed - 2!!9"1#
C$C 12 '.C.
0Insured consignment were stolen enroute and were not delivered to consignee - /ettlement of claim between
consignor and insurer does not absolve 5$ from its liability on the basis of letter of subrogation - 2!!1"2# C$C ,+% '.C.
--Insurer after payment of claim was given a letter of subrogation by consignor - Complaint by insurer not
maintainable as there was no hiring of services of 5$ - 2!!1"2# C$C 1-& '.C.
0Insurer having paid Rs. &9&-!! for loss of insured goods to Consignor - 2eld entitled to receive said amount
from transporter - 1&&&"2# C$C ++9 Chd.
0Insurer on letter of subrogation from consignee is entitled to file complaint against the carrier - 1&&9"1# C$C 11%
$b.
%iability - ( receipt containing terms of liability not signed by complainant has no binding force upon
complainant - 2!!!"2# C$C ,12 6.$.
0Clause limiting liability not signed by complainant - 5rdinary clause of liability would be applicable - 2!!-"1#
C$C 1%9 '.C.
--Clause of contract limited liability of courier service were written in very small letters which could not be
understood by the complainant )oods not delivered to the addressee 5$ to pay price of goods 2!1!"1#
C$C +&1 2.$.
--(ppellant Company supplied palm oil for the complainant for re-sale which was found in shortage to the tune of
Rs. 9+29 - 7inding of /tate Commission that recovery should be made from carrier is not correct 2!!&"1# C$C +1% '.C.
03iability of a courier cannot extend to unlimited limits - 2!!1"1# C$C 212 G J @ 2.C.
--3iability of carrier for any loss cannot exceed limit prescribed by Carriage by (ir (ct 1&92 - 2!!1"1# C$C 2!%
4.'.
--Arong delivery of consignment due to wrong address noted by the employee Cargo agent and carrier both are
=ointly and severally liable for loss - 2!1!"2# C$C 2-- '.C.
1%
--$rincipal cannot escape his liability for deficient service committed by his agent - 2!1!"2# C$C 1 /.C.
03iability of Courier service holder cannot be limited to Rs.1!! unless cogent evidence is produced in this regard -
2!!1"2# C$C +% Chd.
0'on delivery of letter sent through courier service - 3iability not limited to Rs. 1!! only as receipt not signed by
complainant - 2!!+"2# C$C ,1 4.'.
- ( carrier is not under a legal obligation to inform the consignee about refusal of delivery of goods by the consignee
- 1&&+"2# C$C +,, '.C.
0( receipt of consignment not signed by complainant has no binding effect and liability cannot be limited thereby -
2!!1"1# C$C 1,- '.C.
--8amage to goods occurred during transit before consignment reached the consigneeCcomplainant - 5$ is liable to
compensate the complainant - 2!!-"1# C$C 122 '.C.
%iability of (nsurer - Consignment covered under marine policy limited to inland transit - 5.$. not liable for
loss caused beyond shores of India - 2!!9"2# C$C 192 '.C.
%oss of consignment - Consignment of goods not reached its destination - Insurer held liable to pay
compensation determined by surveyor - 2!!1"1# C$C 1-2
0Insurer having paid Rs. &9&-!! for loss of insured goods to Consignor - 2eld entitled to receive said amount
from transporter - 1&&&"2# C$C ++9 Chd.
--?an* not receiving documents relating to consignment of sarees - 'o privity of contract - ?an*>s negligence not
proved - 1&&-"2# C$C 1%2 4.'.
%oss of goods )oods sent through (ir carriage lost but found after four years which were purchased
by Aorld 4rade Corporation (ir India directed to pay value of goods amounting to Rs. 2,!1-9 with interest
and cost for negligence of its officials - 2!!&"%# C$C 19 '.C.
%oss of luggage 3oss of bag weighing 1+ *g $ayment should be made at Rs. 2!!C- per *g under
rules Compensation also reduced from 1!!!!C- to Rs. +!!!C- only - 2!!&"2# C$C ++& @ar.
%oss of parcel - $arcel sent through courier not reaching the addressee nor returned to sender - Courier held
liable to pay Rs. 1+!! as compensation for loss of parcel - 1&&1"2# C$C 1-9 Chd.
)il" Plant - ( transporter extending out his services to the 6il* $lant is not a consumer - Mil# (lant, *ind v.
Mi0an Singh, 1&&,"2# C$C 1+! 2r.
*egligence of bus staff - 3uggage with valuable *ept on the top of bus found missing by staff>s negligence
when it reached destination Compensation cannot be limited upto conditions written on tic*et (ward of Rs. % lacs
compensation upheld - 2!1!"%# C$C %1 '.C.
*on delivery of consignment - Consignment of fabric damaged in rain (lleged omission on the part of
employee is no defence against loss caused to goods Compensation with 1!; interest and costs allowed - 2!1!"2# C$C
%2& '.C.
*on-delivery of goods - Consignment of goods not boo*ed with transporter who was hired only for arranging
truc* for carrying goods - 4ransporter not liable for non-delivery of goods - 2!!1"2# C$C %& '.C.
--4ransporter not liable for non delivery of goods to complainant when he had acted for giving delivery to other
persons in accordance with instructions dispatched to him by complainant - 2!1!"%# C$C %++ '.C.
--Complaint instead of presenting )Rs and demurrage charges filed complaint which was withdrawn subseEuently
Complainant directed to execute bonds give )Rs and pay demurrage to transporter who will release the goods - 2!!&"2#
C$C 1+9 2.$.
04ransporter cannot defend himself by pleading that he was not a transporter but transport bro*er - 8irected to
compensate for non-delivery of goods - 2!!1"2# C$C %+ '.C.
*on impleadment - Consignment sent to buyer by speed post was lost in foreign country - 'on =oinder of
consignee against whom no court of law could proceed does not oust consumer =urisdiction - 2!!1"1# C$C ,,, @ar.
--Complainant failed to implead a person obtaining a gain from delivery of consignment - (ppeal dismissed as not
maintainable - 2!!1"2# C$C 1-& '.C.
--3oss to goods after those were loaded in the ship Responsibilities lies with the carrier who has not been
impleaded Complainant cannot claim reimbursement from shipping agent 2!!&"1# C$C +1- '.C.
*on-payment of +ctroi #uty - non-delivery of consignment by transporter due to non-$ayment of octroi
duty by consignee - 4ransporter liable for deficiency in service - 2!!,"2# C$C 91 C.).
1,
*otice - (s consignment was not delivered to complainant 5$ was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2!%+!!
with &; interest - $lea of non issuance of prior notice is not relevant - 2!!9"1# C$C 2+, '.C.
*otice of loss - Carrier informed consignor that he was in process of locating goods for which consignor should
wait - 'on issue of notice of loss under Carrier (ct does not invalidate complaint - 2!!9"1# C$C +++ /.C.
+nus - 5nus to prove delivery of consignment lies on the consignorCcarrier - 2!!-"1# C$C %1, 2.$.
--?urden of proving a fact regarding negligence by carriers lies upon the insurer which could be shifted to the
carriers by applying provisions of common law - 2!!!"1# C$C +12 /.C.
0)oods entrusted to carrier damaged causing loss to plaintiff - It is not necessary for plaintiff to establish the fact of
negligence when the case is covered under Carriers (ct - 2!!!"1# C$C +1% /.C.
+pportunity - 5pposite $arty failed to avail opportunity of giving 12 months for reply - $lea of lac* of
opportunity not acceptable - 2!!,"2# C$C ,,, /i**im
--<x parte order passed against appellant without affording any opportunity in a consignment case - 5rder set aside -
Case remanded - 2!!-"2# C$C %,! 8elhi
Personal service - Consignment of pac*ets of garments delivered to a wrong person - Respondent>s plea that
this is case of personal service is not tenable - Relief granted - 1&&,"1# C$C 2,, 8elhi
Port Trust - $ort 4rust was =ustified to recover demmurage for delay in ta*ing delivery of consignment from
port - 1&&9"1# C$C ,!, '.C.
Practice and Procedure - 4he Commission referring the matter to a third party for ad=udication and putting
its own seal without applying its mind practice is unwarranted and un=ustified - 2!!!"1# C$C 19& /.C.
Principal and agent $rincipal cannot escape his liability for deficient service committed by his agent -
2!1!"2# C$C 1 /.C.
Printed condition - 2earing aids pac*et sent through courier service not reached to destination - Respondent>s
liability not to exceed Rs. 1!! as printed on receipts - 1&&9"2# C$C ,1- Chd.
03iability restricted to Rs. 1!! as printed on receipt not signed by consignor - Consigner not bound by said
restriction - 1&&&"1# C$C 1!- 6.$.
Privity of contract - Consignment sent by commission agent not reached destination - Impleadment of owner
and driver of tan*er not necessary in the absence of privity of contract - 2!!!"2# C$C ,%! 6.$.
,uantum of compensation - 3iability of Courier is limited to the underta*ing given in the contract between
the parties - 1&&9"1# C$C +2+ 4.'.
-ate of interest - Claim for non-delivery of consignment accepted with 12; interest - Claim upheld with
reduced rate of interest to 1; only - 2!!%"1# C$C +92 6.$.
-a"hi sample - Ra*hi sample sent through courier not reached addressee - Courier directed to pay Rs. ,!!! to
aggrieved party - 1&&-"2# C$C %& A. ?engal
-efund +rder - Refund orders deposited with ban* for collection from another ban* were lost in transit - 4he
courier and not the ban* held liable for negligence - 1&&&"2# C$C +%+ $b.
-elief - Consignment damaged during transit - 'o privity of contract between parties - Relief declined - 2!!,"1#
C$C ,&2 6.$.
-epudiation of claim - Consignment covered under marine policy to be dispatched could not be sent due to
non-availability of ship - Consignment was stored at transporter godown but destroyed due to fire - Repudiation of claim
un=ustified - 2!!9"2# C$C ,+- '.C.
0Consignment insured under 6arine Insurance $olicy were damaged - Repudiation of claim on vague grounds
un=ustified - Insurer to pay Rs. 2-122!! with &; interest - 2!!1"2# C$C 11 '.C.
Shipment of consignment /teel coil of eEuipment sent by shipment damaged by rain water as pac*aging
was not done with adeEuate standard Repudiation of claim =ustified 2!11"1# C$C ,,9 '.C.
Shipping agent /hipping agent is not liable for loss of goods after these are loaded and bill of lading is issued
2!!&"1# C$C +1- '.C.
Shipped goods loss - Claim should be filed within one year from date of loss under Carriage of )oods by /ea
(ct 1&2+ - Maria))a %arendranathan v. Shipping Corporation o8 India, 1&&&"2# C$C 2-2 @er.
1+
Subrogation - Insured goods not delivered - Insurer compensated consignor and can recover amount from
respondent on the basis of letter of subrogation - 1&&1"1# C$C ,,- Ra=.
05nce a letter of subrogation has been executed with power of attorney in favor of insurer - Consigner is competent
to file a complaint himself or in the name of the original consigner - 2!!1"2# C$C %- '.C.
--Right of subrogation executed in favour of a person entitles him to claim a relief for loss caused by respondent>s
negligence - %e& India 'ssrance Co. !td. v. M/s. "anpr Calctta .oad Carriers, 1&&9"2# C$C +!% $b.
Subrogation.assignee - Insurance Company obtaining letter of subrogation after compensating consignor -
Company being an assignee in effect is not a consumer - 2!!1"2# C$C 1 /.C.
Subrogation.assignment - Insurance Company cannot be regraded as a consumer in a case of assignment
instead that of subrogation - 2!!1"1# C$C 2%, A.?engal
Summary proceedings - Complicated Euestions involved in a complaint regarding air consignment -
Remedy lies in Civil Court not under Consumer $rotection (ct - 1&&1"2# C$C +2 '.C.
T/0/ Set - 8elivery of the consignment of 4.D. sets as per instruction of consigner - 4ransporter not liable for
deficient service - G.". Electronics (M/s.) v. M/s. Sood Goods Transport Co., 2!!2"2# C$C 1,2 Chd.
Terms of liability - 3iability upto 1!! pounds mentioned in small and fine terms on reverse receipt issued by
courier - 3iability cannot be limited to such terms - 2!!2"2# C$C 1!9 '.C.
Transport bro"er - 4ransporter cannot defend himself by pleading that he was not a transporter but transport
bro*er - 8irected to compensate for non-delivery of goods - 2!!1"2# C$C %+ '.C.
Transport fair - 7ixation of fair by transport authority cannot be Euestioned under this (ct - 1&&1 C$C 11-
@ar.
Transport service - 12 tractors insured during transportation - 4yres damaged - Insurance Co. directed to pay
Rs. +&&2% with 12; interest $.(. - 1&&-"2# C$C 1!% 2r.
012! sugar bags loaded in respondent>s truc* not reaching destination as conveyor was ta*en away by the driver -
4ransporter directed to pay Rs. 1,1!!! with 1; interest to complainant - 1&&&"1# C$C %9% 6.$.
011% out of ,&! bags sent through transporter were found rotten - 5rder of 8istrict 7orum accepting claim of Rs.
1%-+!! for loss upheld in appeal - 2!!,"1# C$C 2+, $b.
0, out of 29 bales of handlooms goods sent through transporter were damaged on account of soa*ing of water -
4ransporter directed to pay Rs. 1%,19 with 12; interest to complainant - 1&&&"2# C$C 212 Chd.
0( transporter cannot escape the liability merely raising a plea of being bro*er as mentioned in the consignment
note - 1&&+"2# C$C ,9- )u=.
0( transporter cannot evade his responsibility by asserting that goods were carried by truc* owned by third party -
1&&9"1# C$C +%% 6.$.
0( transporter extending out his service to the 6il* $lant is not a consumer - 1&&,"2# C$C 1+! 2r.
0( transporter is bound to compensate the consignor for loss of goods due to his negligence - 1&&-"1# C$C 219
'.C.
0( transporter is expected to ensure safe carriage of consignment assigned to him - 1&&9"1# C$C +%% 6.$.
--( transporter with whom goods are entrusted is bound to ta*e care of goods as a bailee - 1&&9"1# C$C 11- $b.
0(s consignment was not delivered to complainant 5$ was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2!%+!! with &;
interest - $lea of non issuance of prior notice is not relevant - 2!!9"1# C$C 2+, '.C.
0?us without board not showing its route - Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 12!! awarded to the complainant -
1&&1 C$C 1,! and 19! 6aha.
--Consignment caught fire in godown and goods were lost 4ransport as bailee of goods liable to compensate for
loss caused to the petitioner - 2!!&"2# C$C 1-, '.C.
--Consignment of boo*ed bale not delivered Complaint allowed exparte Contention regarding delivery of
consignment after lapse of three years nine months not acceptable 8eficiency in service proved 2!!&"1# C$C 19%
'.C.
0Complainant a senior citiBens was manhandled by staff of 84C by snatching senior citiBens pass when shown to
the staff - Complainant rightly awarded compensation by /tate Commission - 2!!9"1# C$C 1%& '.C.
0Complainant failed to prove damage of plant due to fault of transporter - Relief declined - 1&&1"1# C$C 1-9 Chd.
0Complainant failed to prove that 1 boxes were lost during the transportation - 2eld not entitled to any relief due to
lac* of evidence - 1&&,"1# C$C 22+ $b.
11
0Complainant>s goods damaged during transit due to transporter>s negligence - 4ransporter directed to pay Rs.
+!!! to complainant - 1&&9"2# C$C ,19 2r.
0Complainant>s husband sustained in=uries due to driver>s negligence who had par*ed the bus on wrong side of
road - Complainant held entitled to compensation with cost - 2!!2"2# C$C 22 6aha.
0Complaint failed to prove delivery of consignment without receiving lorry receipt by transporter - 'o case of
deficient service made out against transporter - 1&&-"1# C$C 199 4.'.
0Complaint filed to prove the loss of articles sent through 4ransport Company - 'ot entitled to any compensation -
1&&,"2# C$C ,1, 2r.
0Consignee refused to pay octroi duty - Refusal to deliver the goods does not amount to a deficient service by
transporter - 1&&% C$C ++1 '.C.
0Consignment containing 4ractor $arts not delivered in time - 4ransporter directed to pay Rs. 1,+21, with 12;
interest to consigner as time was essence of contract - 2!!1"2# C$C %,1 Chd.
0Consignment delivered wrongly to consignee without differentiating between 6odern /aree <mporium and
6odern /aree Centre - 4ransporter to compensate consignor with 1-; interest - 1&&-"2# C$C 11, $b.
0Consignment lea*ed and short delivery of goods - 5pen delivery ta*en letters of subrogation executed in favour of
Co. - Complaint against transport company =ointly valid - 2!!-"%# C$C , '.C.
0Consignment not delivered to consignee as agreed - 8isputed Euestion about Euantum of loss raised - Relief
against transporter may be got from civil court - 1&&1"2# C$C 19, '.C.
--Consignment of goods damaged to the extent of 9!; during transportation - 4ransporter held liable to compensate
- 1&&+"2# C$C ,&+ (.$.
0Consignment of goods delivered to consignee without getting necessary documents released from ban* -
4ransporter directed to pay value of goods with 1+; interest - 2!!2"1# C$C +,, '.C.
0Consignment of goods not boo*ed with transporter who was hired only for arranging truc* for carrying goods -
4ransport not liable for non-delivery of goods - 2!!1"2# C$C %& '.C.
0Consignment of goods reached to addressee - Consignee and consignor failed to ta*e delivery of goods -
4ransporter not liable for deficient service - "... Golden Carrier v. Shri +anarsi -ass, 1&&9"2# C$C 111 $b.
0Consignment of goods sent through transporter carrier did not reach the destination - ( sum of Rs. 11,9+! with
19; interest granted to complainant - Shri .a) Transport Co)pan0 v. Goel Traders, 1&&&"1# C$C +1- 6.$.
0Consignment of tyre not delivered to consignee - 4ransporter made to Rs. 1,,!2, to complainant - 2!!%"2# C$C
1%- Chhatisgarh
0Consignment sent through Respondent>s carrier lost during transit - Respondent directed to pay full amount with
12; interest - 1&&9"2# C$C 1+9 $b.
0Consignment sent through 4ransport Carrier was not collected by consignee - 4ransporter not bound to return
goods by reboo*ing to consignor in the absence of a contract to that effect - 1&&&"2# C$C ,19 $b.
0Consignment sent through transport did not reach destination - 5$ directed to pay cost of consignment with 12;
interest and cost - 2!!1"2# C$C 1&& '.C.
0Consignment sent through transporter not delivered to consignee nor it was returned bac* - Respondent directed to
pay Rs. 2121+ with 1-; interest with compensation of Rs. +!!! 1&&&"1# C$C ,+! $b.
0Consignment sent through transporter not reaching consignee - (llegation and counter allegation made - $arties
relegated to civil litigation - 1&&-"2# C$C 12- Chd.
0Consignment was delivered on production of original copy of )R - Carrier not bound to enEuire about
genuineness of person ta*ing the delivery - 2!!9"1# C$C %&2 '.C.
0Consignment was sent to its destination - Consignee did not ta*e delivery despite information to avoid octroi duty
- 4ransporter not liable for loss of consignment - 1&&-"2# C$C +29 $b.
--Consignments delivered to wrong person without )Rs causing loss to consignor - 5nly 2 out of + consignments
were redelivered - 4ransporter directed to pay its price with 1-; p.a. interest - 2!!1"1# C$C 191 $b.
0Contract for sending goods through transport - )oods damaged in transit - Complainant comes under the
definition of a consumer - 1&&,"2# C$C +,9 2r.
08elivery of consignee with production of ban* documents - 4ransporter held liable for deficiency in service -
2!!1"1# C$C ,1, 4.'.
08elivery of consignment without verifying genuineness of consignee - 4ransporter must pay compensation -
2!!1"1# C$C +,1 Chd.
08elivery of goods not ta*en for two months as demurrage was imposed - 4ransporter cannot be held liable for
negligence in duty - 1&&9"2# C$C 11+ $b.
19
08elivery of the consignment of 4.D. sets as per instruction of consigner - 4ransporter not liable for deficient
service - 2!!2"2# C$C 1,2 Chd.
0<xcessive fair charged by the conductor - Compensation of Rs. 2,2 awarded to the complainant for deficiency in
service - 1&&1 C$C 1&- 6aha.
07ixation of fares of /tate 4ransport is within the competence of statutory Corporation - Complaint does not lie
under the (ct - 1&&+"2# C$C +1, '.C.
0)oods damaged during =ourney due to respondent>s negligence - Complainant entitled to be compensated -
1&&1"1# C$C +1, Chd.
0)oods damaged - Insurer exonerated in appeal as conditions of policy not satisfied - Compensation reduced in appeal -
5rder upheld in revision - 2!!-"%# C$C 1+1 '.C.
0)oods not delivered to consignee due to transporter>s negligence - Consignee must be compensated - +o)9a0
-elhi Goods Carrier v. M/s Mira .99er Corporation, 2!!2"1# C$C %% Chd.
0)oods seiBed by /ale 4ax (uthorities for nonpayment of /ale 4ax - 4ransporter held not liable - 2!!,"1# C$C
,,1 C.).
0)oods sent through carriers not delivered to consignee - 5.$. directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12-+9-& with interest
- 2!!+"2# C$C %+2 '.C.
0)oods sent through transporter not reaching the destination - 4ransporter directed to ma*e the payment to
complainant - 2!!!"2# C$C 1&1 6aha.
0)oods sent through transporter were stolen by his employees - 4ransporter held liable for deficiency in service -
1&&+"1# C$C %!2 )u=.
--Insured consignment were stolen enroute and were not delivered to consignee - /ettlement of claim between
consignor and insurer does not absolve 5$ from its liability on the basis of letter of subrogation - 2!!1"2# C$C ,+% '.C.
--)oods transported through public carrier not delivered at the destination - 4ransporter directed to pay cost of goods
with 12; interest - 2!!1"2# C$C %+ '.C.
0Insurer having paid Rs. &9&-!! for loss of insured goods to Consignor - 2eld entitled to receive said amount
from transporter - 1&&&"2# C$C ++9 Chd.
0Insurer repudiated the claim ignoring surveyor>s report - 2eld liable to pay the loss with 12; interest and costs -
Sehgal "nit&ears I)porters and Exporters (M/s.) v. ,nited India Insrance Co. !td., 1&&&"2# C$C 2!9 $b.
0It is the duty of a transporter to receive necessary documents from consignor at the time of loading of
consignment - 1&&-"1# C$C %&, $b.
03oaded truc* was ta*en away by miscreants during transit - 8river not liable for deficiency in service - 1&&&"1#
C$C +92 6aha.
03oss to consignment was not due to the negligence of transporter - Complainant not entitled to any relief -
1&&1"2# C$C 11, '.C.
0'on delivery of consignment on vague ground of non payment of freight - 5.$. directed to ma*e payment of
consignment with interest - 2!!1"2# C$C 219 '.C.
05il tins sent through tempo owned by 5$ damaged causing spillage of oil - 5.$. directed to pay a sum of Rs.
19,2% with cost - 2!!%"1# C$C 91 Chd.
05.$. acted as an agent of transporter to arrange truc* for transportation - Complaint not maintainable against him -
2!!,"1# C$C ,&2 6.$.
0$arcel handed over to 5.$. did not reach addressee - 5.$. held liable for deficiency in service - 2!!1"1# C$C 2+
8elhi
0Refusal to provide transport facilities to some school children - 'o agreement for consideration between the
parties - Case of deficiency in service not proved - 1&&,"1# C$C ,&% )u=.
0Respondent suffered huge loss on account of wrong delivery of consignment - (warded Rs. 1!!!!!! as
compensation for suffering loss - 1&&+"1# C$C 112 '.C.
0/even cases of consignment were found missing - It was alleged that carrier>s driver was at fault but this plea was
not ta*en - Relief declined - %e& India 'ssrance Co. !td. v. Capt. 'sh&ani Salaria, 1&&-"2# C$C %91 $b.
04ransport authorities are competent to terminate bus service at a particular place to avoid traffic =am - 1&&1"2#
C$C ,-1 '.C.
--4ransporter delivered goods without obtaining )R from consignee - 2eld liable for loss by wrong delivery of
goods - 1&&9"2# C$C 2,, '.C.
04ransporter delivered consignment to unauthorised person without consent of consignor - 8irected to pay
compensation of Rs. 2!!!! with litigation cost - 2!!1"2# C$C 21- 8elhi
04ransporter failed to deliver goods by its carrier - 2eld liable for deficiency in service - 2!!!"2# C$C 1++ '.C.
1-
04ransporter failed to deliver the goods to consignee - 2eld liable to pay Rs. -!9+ with 1+; interest to consignor -
1&&1"1# C$C 1%& $b.
04ransporter failed to prove that goods were destroyed by fire by (ct of )od - 4ransporter held liable to
compensate for loss - 2!!!"2# C$C 2-1 4.'.
04ransporter failed to prove that goods were ta*en away and driver was murdered - 6ere assertion cannot absolve
respondent of his liability - 1&&&"1# C$C ++, )u=.
04ransporter failed to send vehicles to carry consignment despite payment - 4ransaction of commercial nature -
Complaint not maintainable under Consumer $rotection (ct - 2!!,"1# C$C ,11 ..$.
04ransporter had to deliver goods to another probable consignee on door delivery basis as the original consignee
refused to accept delivery - 4ransporter committed no fault - 1&&9"1# C$C %2 Chd.
04ransporter is bound to ma*e safe delivery of goods unless prevented by (ct of )od or /tate enemy - Se&a#
Transport Co)pan0 v. Sh. -arshan Singh, 2!!%"1# C$C 1+1 Chd.
04ransporter undertoo* responsibility to carry the goods to destination - 8amage caused to goods due to
appellant>s negligence - (ppellant held liable to compensate - 1&&1"2# C$C 1!- 2r.
Transport vehicle - ( maxicab having the unladen weight of 1+!! @gs. is a light motor vehicle - ( licence for
light motor vehicle is valid for driving a maxicab - 2!!1"2# C$C 191 '.C.
Transportation - /ix bundles of cloth lost during transit - 4ransporter liable to pay cost of cloth i.e. Rs.
11+!2! with Rs. 21+!! as cost and compensation - 2!!+"2# C$C 1%, .ttaranchal
Transporter - 1+ drums out of ,! drums of raw material were lost during transit - Insurance Co. and not the
transporter directed to pay value of drums with interest and cost - 2!!1"1# C$C 2-1 @ar.
0'o complaint about damaged goods made at the time of delivery -4ransporter not liable for deficiency in service -
2!!,"2# C$C 1- Ra=.
--Complaint instead of presenting )Rs and demurrage charges filed complaint which was withdrawn subseEuently
Complainant directed to execute bonds give )Rs and pay demurrage to transporter who will release the goods - 2!!&"2#
C$C 1+9 2.$.
--/hort delivery of goods to consignee constitutes a deficiency in service - 2!!1"1# C$C 9, '.C.
Transporter.consignment - Consignor>s goods lost during transit - Claim settled by insurer at lower amount
- Consignor after letter of subrogation obtained by insurer is not a consumer - 2!!9"2# C$C 9!- '.C.
Transporters fault 4ransporter did not deliver goods to consignee nor returned to consignor without any
=ustification 8irected to compensate consignor $rovisions of Carriers (ct not applicable as it was not a case of loss or
in=ury to goods - 2!1!"%# C$C %99 '.C.
Transporters liability - ( 4ransporter failed to deliver goods - Complainant>s claim cannot be Euestioned
merely that he had =oined hands with the insurance company - 1&&,"2# C$C +1- '.C.
--4ransporter not liable for non delivery of goods to complainant when he had acted for giving delivery to other
persons in accordance with instructions dispatched to him by complainant - 2!1!"%# C$C %++ '.C.
0(gent of transporter gave receipt of short supply of transported goods - 4ransport bound by agent>s admission -
Calctta Express .oadlines (rivate !td. v. Cadila :ealthcare !td., 2!!,"1# C$C ,1 )u=.
Travel agency - Complainant reEuested for cancellation of boo*ing of seats 1! days before the date of
departure due to illness of his son - 2eld entitled to refund of half of boo*ing amount - 1&&,"2# C$C &+ '.C.
08ilapidated bus provided to group of travellers causing great hardship during =ourney - 4ravel Company directed
to pay Rs. 1!!! per traveller as compensation - 2!!!"1# C$C 2%, )u=.
04ravel agency purchasing flight tic*et for passengers is not a consumer under the C.$. (ct - 'ot entitled to relief -
1&&9"2# C$C 21! @er.
0(ppellants failed to deliver necessary documents to respondent in time - 'egligence in rendering courier>s service
by appellant proved - 1&&2 C$C +1, '.C.
0/ervice - 4our cancelled due to land slide - 4ravelling agency liable to compensate the traveller - $lea of personal
service not accepted - 1&&1 C$C 11% 6aha.
Travel Agent - (ir India is not liable for any deficiency in service committed by a 4ravel (gent under
Consumer $rotection (ct - 1&&1"2# C$C 9+ '.C.
0( travel (gent through whom air tic*et is purchased is not liable for deficiency of air authorities - Indian 'irlines
!i)ited v. -r. Savita Malhotra, 2!!+"1# C$C %,2 Chd.
0(llegation of misguiding by travelling agent in purchase of (ir 4ic*et found to be vague - 4ravelling agent not
liable for deficiency in service - Te# Chand v. Sh. Mohinder (al Singh +ajaj, 2!!1"2# C$C ,11 Chd.
1&
04ravel agent failed to inform the complainant about prior condition of vaccination of yellow fever causing
harassment to complainant - (gent directed to pay Rs. 1!!!! as compensation - 1&&1"2# C$C %1 Chd.
Tyre consignment - Consignment of tyre not delivered to consignee - 4ransporter made to Rs. 1,,!2, to
complainant - 2!!%"2# C$C 1%- Chhatisgarh
1nauthorised delivery of goods - (irlines released consignment to unauthoriBed person causing
huge loss to the consignor 5$ (irlines directed to compensate the complainant by refunding value of goods
and refund of freight with interest and cost - 2!!&"%# C$C ,1! '.C.
1nilateral Condition - ( party is not bound by conditions imposed on him unilaterally by other party -
1&&-"2# C$C 191 (.$.
--)ood sent through courier not reached to addressee 5$ liable to pay price of goods Condition of Rs. 1!!C-
being unilateral is not binding on claimant 2!1!"1# C$C 9%1 2.$.
1nilateral Terms - 4erms printed on a receipt limiting extent of liability not signed by other party has no
binding force - 1&&-"2# C$C ,21 '.C.
1ninsured pac"ets $ac*ets of medicines sent through courier services not delivered to addressee (warded
of compensation with cost allowed but not price of medicine due to lac* of insurance 2!!&"1# C$C &2 '.C.
1nsigned terms of receipt 6onitor and *eyboard sent through courier service received in damaged
condition by the addressee Receipt terms not signed by the complainant 4erms of receipt have no binding effect on the
complaint 5$ directed to pay compensation of Rs. &!!! - 2!1!"%# C$C &+ Ra=.
KKKKK
Consumer Protection Cases
2C/P/C/3
A )onthly %aw 4ournal
Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of
Telephone, ailways, Transport, !lectricity, Housin" Board, Urban Development #uthorities, Industrial and
Consumer #ssociations etc$
Ae publish a monthly 3aw Gournal namely
HConsumer %rotection CasesI.
#etails of 0olumes
5/ 5665 Consumer $rotection Cases *ot in Stoc"
7/ 5667 Consumer $rotection Cases *ot in Stoc"
8/ 5668 Consumer $rotection Cases *ot in Stoc"
9/ 5669 :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
</ 5669 :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
=/ 566< :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
>/ 566< :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
?/ 566= :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
6/ 566= :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
5@/ 566> :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
55/ 566> :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
57/ 566? :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
58/ 566? :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
2!
59/ 5666 :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
5</ 5666 :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
5=/ 7@@@ :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
5>/ 7@@@ :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
5?/ 7@@5 :5; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
56/ 7@@5 :7; Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. +!!C- only
7@/ 7@@7 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
75/ 7@@7 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
77/ 7@@8 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
78/ 7@@8 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
79/ 7@@9 :5; Consumer Protection Cases *ot in Stoc"
7</ 7@@9 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
7=/ 7@@< :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
7>/ 7@@< :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
7?/ 7@@= :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
76/ 7@@= :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
8@/ 7@@> :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
85/ 7@@> :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
87/ 7@@? :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
88/ 7@@? :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
89/ 7@@? :8; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
8</ 7@@6 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
8=/ 7@@6 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
8>/ 7@@6 :8; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
8?/ 7@5@ :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
86/ 7@5@ :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
9@/ 7@5@ :8; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
95/ 7@55 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s/ <?@.- only
97/ Annual Subscription 7@55 'or three 0ols -s/ 58=@.- only
98/ Consumer Protection Cases #igest 5665 to 7@@? -s/ 587@.- only
#ddress for Correspondence &
6anager
Consumer $rotection Cases
12+1 /ector --C
Chandigarh 11! !!&
$hones L !192-2+,,-%! and !&,19,1,19+
<-mail cpcMchd:yahoo.com
www.consumercases.in
KKKK