A.K Patnaik, J.— This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 18-2-2003 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 371 of 2000.
2. The facts very briefly are that Respondent 3 booked a consignment of monoblock pumps with the appellant for transportation from Coimbatore to Respondents 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. Respondents 1 and 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 Respondent 3.
3. Respondents 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 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 costs of Rs 5000 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”).
4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in its order dated 27-1-1999, 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 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 1-4-1997 till the date of payment and Rs 500 as counsel's fee and further sum of Rs 500 as costs of the case.
5. 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 7-10-1999 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 (2-3-1998) till the date of payment. The appellant filed a revision but by the impugned order dated 18-2-2003 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision.
6. On 10-7-2003, this Court took note of the fact that the amount awarded in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had been deposited and the counsel for the appellant had no objection to the amount to be paid to Respondents 1 and 2. This Court in its order dated 10-7-2003 issued notice limited to the question of law raised before the Court. In the order dated 10-7-2003, however, this Court appears to have recorded a different question of law and hence the appellant has filed an application IA No. 2 of 2003 for clarification of the aforesaid order dated 10-7-2003.
7. On reading the application IA No. 2 of 2003, we find that the question of law raised was whether the appellant was entitled to receive the 198 monoblock pumps from Respondent 3 when he is held to be liable to pay the price of the monoblock pumps to Respondents 1 and 2. We, accordingly, correct the order dated 10-7-2003 as prayed by the appellant in the application for clarification in IA No. 2 of 2003.
8. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should have directed Respondent 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 Respondents 1 and 2, who had paid for the same to Respondent 3. He submitted that the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the price of the monoblock pumps to Respondents 1 and 2 and at the same time not entitled to the return of the 198 monoblock pumps from Respondent 3.
9. The learned counsel for Respondent 3 relied on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 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 Respondent 3 under the watch and ward of extra staff engaged by Respondent 3 and that due to delay the monoblock pumps have become useless and have no value at all.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent 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 1 and 2 and this sum of Rs 3,60,131 covered the price of the monoblock pumps and this price of the monoblock pumps had also been received by Respondent 3 from Respondents 1 and 2, the appellant was entitled to the return of the damaged 198 monoblock pumps from Respondent 3. We are also of the view that in case Respondent 3 has disposed of the 198 monoblock pumps in the meanwhile, the appellant was entitled to the value of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps realised by Respondent 3. If the damaged monoblock pumps are not returned by Respondent 3 to the appellant or if the value of the damaged monoblock pumps realised by Respondent 3 is not paid to the appellant, Respondent 3 would stand unjustly enriched. To quote Lord Wright in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. 1943 AC 32, (1942) 2 All ER 122 (HL): (AC p. 61)
“… any civilised 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 recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution.”
11. We are also of the considered opinion that Respondent 3 was not entitled to any charges towards watch and ward, etc. as Respondent 3 should not have retained the damaged monoblock pumps having received the full price of the pumps.
12. 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 3 to the appellant and if the 198 damaged monoblock pumps are not available with Respondent 3, to find out the value of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps realised by Respondent 3 and direct Respondent 3 to pay the said value to the appellant. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.