Dismissed

M/S on Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. & Anr. v. Permanent Lok Adalat & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2012LPA/362/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging an order by the Permanent Lok Adalat awarding compensation to a consumer for lost goods. The court upheld the Lok Adalat's order, holding the carrier strictly liable under the statutory provision without escape clauses.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; order dated 1.4.2011 by Permanent Lok Adalat upholding compensation claim remained intact.

M/S on Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. & Anr. Vs… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.362 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision : July 23, 2012

¶3

M/s On Dot Couriers & Cargo Limited, New Delhi & another

¶4

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS The Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S)

¶6

. . .

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶8

. . .

¶9

PRESENT: - Mr. Tarun Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶10

. . .

¶11

Surya Kant, J (Oral)

¶12

This appeal is directed against order dated 21.12.2011 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No.23850 of 2011. The said writ petition was directed against order dated 1.4.2011 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana awarding a sum of ` 2,02,800/alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of booking of the consignment till actual payment.

¶13

The appellant is admittedly a carrier with whom the second respondent booked a consignment on 13.10.2009 for the delivery of certain articles at Moga. Since the goods did not reach the destination,

¶14

LPA No.362 of 2012 [2]

¶15

the claim was lodged and upon refusal by appellant to compensate, the second respondent approached the Permanent Lok Adalat.

¶16

The only plea taken by the appellant before the Permanent Lok Adalat, learned Single Judge as well as before us is that respondent No.2 concealed the value of the goods and had not taken insurance as the goods were valued at more than ` 10,000/-. Learned Single Judge has turned down the aforestated objection observing that it does not exclude the appellant from its liability as the Statute expressly makes a carrier absolutely liable for any loss or damage to the goods in transit. In the event of insurance of the goods, respondent No.2 could claim the value of the loss from the Insurance Company. It obviously does not mean that the appellant can escape from its own liability when admittedly the goods were lost and not delivered at the given destination.

¶17

We do not find any ground to interfere. 6. Dismissed.

¶18

(Surya Kant) Judge

¶19

(R.P. Nagrath) July 23, 2012 Judge avin

M/S on Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. & Anr. v. Permanent Lok Adalat & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S on Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. & Anr. v. Permanent Lok Adalat & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gobind Enterprises Vs M/S Baba Gurmukh Singh Auto Ltd.

Mangat Mohan @ Manga Vs Renu and Ors.

Anil Kumar Garg Vs Naurang Dass and Ors.

Barfi Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Virender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another