The term "at owner's risk" appears in every goods receipt or consignment note issued by the transporters to whom the goods are entrusted by traders, manufacturers or businessmen for delivery to their dealers or customers. Does this term completely exonerate the transport company from its liability if the goods so consigned are not delivered, late delivered or delivered in a damaged condition? Transporters say so and invariably advance this plea if any action is taken against them. Courts too have struggled hard to reconcile the situation and even the Supreme Court had to go into this baffling question on several occasions.
Rungta Brothers had booked a consignment of Kota Stones with Vijay Goods Transport Company at Kota to be delivered at Bharuch in Gujarat. The goods dispatched were not delivered at the destination. In their complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it was pleaded that the complainant had no right to claim damages as the goods receipt had clearly stipulated the goods were transported on the responsibility of the complainant. The district forum dismissed the complaint.
An appeal was filed against the order of the district forum before the Rajasthan State Commission which held the carrier responsible for the loss caused to the complainant. Against the state commission's order, the transport company filed a Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In its order reported at 2003 CTJ 480 (CP) in the matter of Vijay Goods Transport Company v. Rungta Brothers, the national commission held the transporter liable to make good the loss.
In the case of Nath Brothers v. Best Roadways Limited, 2000 CTJ 335(SC)(CP), Nath Brothers had booked a consignment of 77 packages of mulberry/natural silk garments with the Best Roadways Limited for being carried from Noida to Mumbai to be delivered to M/s Jeena & Company. The consignment was to be further exported to the UK. Nath Brothers received a letter from the transport company stating that the consignment which was stored at a godown in Bhiwadi was completely destroyed by fire. Nath Brothers wanted the transport company to compensate them with Rs.36,12,847.60 with an 18 per cent interest. The transport company refused to do so. Nath Brothers filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where the transport firm pleaded that the goods were carried at "owner risk" and since special premium was not paid, they were not responsible for the loss. The complaint was dismissed.
On appeal against the above order, the Supreme Court held the liability of a carrier to whom the goods are entrusted for carriage is that of an insurer and is absolute in terms which means the carrier has to deliver the goods safely, undamaged and without loss at the destination. The court also observed that "the expression, 'owner risk', does not exempt a carrier from his own negligence or the negligence of his servants or agents."
In yet another case, Patel Roadways v. Birla Yamaha Ltd. 2000 CTJ 241 (SC) (CP), the apex court has gone to the extent of observing that the absolute nature of the carrier's liability "it is not for the plaintiff to establish negligence." The terms such as "owner's risk" or "at the sole responsibility of the owner" are of no significance and cannot absolve the carrier's responsibility to ensure the safe delivery of goods. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission too had an occasion recently to reappraise the legal position. In its judgment dated October 13, 2011 in Transport Corporation of India v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. it has reiterated the absolute liability of the carrier. Likewise, in Associated Road Carriers Ltd. v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. (F.A. No. 125 of 1999) the commission on November 2, 2011 observed "the carrier cannot disown the liability by saying he did not cause the loss".
From the above legal position, it is manifest that while certainly the consignors would be advised to insure the precious goods transported through the transporters, the mere fact that the goods receipt mentions that the goods were dispatched at "owner's risk" should not by itself deter the consignors in claiming compensation from the transporters.
No comments:
Post a Comment