M/S Nagpur Golden Transport Co. & Ors vs M/S Nath Traders & Ors

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3546 OF 2006

M/s Nagpur Golden Transport

Company (Regd.) ... Appellant

Versus

M/s Nath Traders & Ors. ...

Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. 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.

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent No.3 booked a

consignment of monoblock pumps with the appellant for

transportation from Coimbatore to respondents No.1 and 2 at

Gwalior in March, 1997. While the appellant was transporting

the consignment in a truck, there was an accident and the

monoblock pumps were damaged. The respondents No.1 and

2

2, therefore, did not take delivery of the 198 damaged

monoblock pumps at Gwalior. In the circumstances, the

appellant returned the 198 damaged monoblock pumps to the

respondent No.3.

3. 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 complaint was that they had paid the

price of the consignment 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 cost of Rs.5,000/- and interest @ 18% per annum on the

amount claimed by them. The appellant resisted the claim

contending that the claim was not maintainable under the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short `the Act'). The

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in its order

dated 27.01.1999, held that the appellant as a common 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 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 counsel fee and further sum of Rs.500/- as

3

cost of the case.

4. 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 no legal 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 complaint

(02.03.1998) till the date of payment. The appellant filed a

revision but by the impugned order dated 18.02.2003 the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed

the revision.

5. On 10.07.2003, this Court took note of the fact that the

amount awarded in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 by

the District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum had been

deposited and the counsel for the appellant had no objection to

the amount to be paid to respondents No.1 and 2. This Court

in its order dated 10.07.2003 issued notice limited to the

question of law raised before the Court. In the order dated

4

10.07.2003, however, this Court appears to have recorded a

different question of law and hence the appellant has filed an

application I.A. No.2 of 2003 for clarification of the aforesaid

order dated 10.07.2003. On reading the application I.A. No.2

of 2003, we find that the question of law raised was whether

the appellant was entitled to receive 198 monoblock pumps

from respondent No.3 when he is held to be liable to pay the

price of the monoblock pumps to respondents No.1 and 2. We,

accordingly, correct the order dated 10.07.2003 as prayed by

the appellant in the application for clarification in I.A. No.2 of

2003.

6. At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum should have directed the respondent No.3 to

return the 198 monoblock pumps to the appellant when the

appellant has been held liable for the price of the monoblock

pumps to the respondents No.1 and 2, who had paid for the

same to respondent No.3. He submitted that the appellant

cannot be held liable to pay the price of the monoblock pumps

to respondents No.1 and 2 and at the same time not entitled to

the return of the 198 monoblock pumps from respondent No.3.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 relied on the counter

5

affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 in this Court in

which it is stated that the 198 damaged monoblock pumps had

no value and the same have been kept in the godown of the

respondent No.3 under the watch and ward of extra staff

engaged by the respondent No.3 and that due to delay the

monoblock pumps have become useless and have no value at

all.

8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for

the appellant and the respondent No.3 and we are of the

considered opinion that if the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs.3,60,131/- to

respondents No.1 and 2 and this sum of Rs. Rs.3,60,131/-

covered the price of the monoblock pumps and this price of the

monoblock pumps had also received by respondent No.3 from

the respondents No.1 and 2, the appellant was entitled to the

return of the damaged 198 monoblock pumps from respondent

No.1. We are also of the view that in case the respondent No.3

has disposed of the 198 monoblock pumps in the meanwhile,

the appellant was entitled to the value of the 198 damaged

monoblock pumps realized by the respondent No.3. If the

damaged monoblock pumps are not returned by respondent

No.3 to the appellant or if the value of the damaged monoblock

6

pumps realized by respondent No.3 are not paid to the

appellant, respondent No.3 would stand unjustly enriched. To

quote Lord Wright in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn

Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. [(1942) 2 ALL ER 122 (HL)]:

"......Any civilized system of law is bound to provide

remedies for cases of what has been called unjust

enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man

from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived

from, another which it is against conscience that he

should keep. Such remedies in English law are

generically different from remedies in contract or in

tort, and are now recognized to fall within a third

category of the common law which has been called

quasi-contract or restitution."

We are also of the considered opinion that the respondent No.3

was not entitled to any charges towards watch and ward etc. as

respondent No.3 should not have retained the damaged

monoblock pumps having received the full price of the pumps.

9. We, therefore, remand the matter to the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, with the direction to issue

notice to the parties and after taking evidence, if necessary,

order the return of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps by

respondent No.3 to the appellant and if the 198 damaged

monoblock pumps are not available with respondent No.3, to

find out the value of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps

realized by the respondent No.3 and direct the respondent No.3

to pay the said value to the appellant. The appeal is allowed to

7

the extent indicated above. No costs.

.............................J.

(P. Sathasivam)

.............................J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

December 07, 2011.