Per Justice G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. The complainant after serving in the Indian Army attained superannuation in the year 2007 while being in the rank of a Brigadier. He at that time was posted in the city of Lucknow. Immediately, he got new appointment as Commandant (LAW) at the Head Quarter of Jammu Frontier BSF Plaura. While vacating the official premises from Lucknow and proceeding to Jammu (plaura), he booked his house-hold articles for carriage purposes with OP No.1 which is a transport company and is being run in the name and style of Pashupati Nath Road Carriers 7th Chander Nagar Market Alambagh Lucknow-5 U.P. OP No.1 had hired the services of OP No.3. OP No.2 had been engaged by O.P No.3 as a driver of Truck No. HR-38-H-7569. O.P No.3 loaded the house-hold articles in the said truck. The freight charges of the house hold articles were fixed at Rs.26,000/- as per the contract entered by the complainant and OP No.1. The complainant paid the part payment of Rs. 18,000/- through cheque to OP No.1 at its Head Office situated in Lucknow. The remaining payment of Rs. 8,000/- was to be made to OP No.2 on their safe delivery to the place of destination. The house-hold articles were entrusted to O.P No.2 against his signatures appended on the list of articles (annexure I). The articles have been fully described indicating their prices in annexure II. Their total value was of Rs. 15,36,900/- It is alleged in the complaint that the loaded truck which was being plied by OP No.2 reached outside BSF Campus at Plaura on 24.04.2007 at night hours and it was parked there because the entry gate had been closed. In the morning of 25.04.2007, the loaded truck driven by OP No.2 entered "Plaura top gate of the BSF Campus" but it got entangled with the over head low hanging electric wires many times and ultimately hit against an electric pole just outside the top gate with such impact of intensity that fire ignited from the electric wires and it engulfed the loaded goods which got totally destroyed. It was a case of total loss. The incident was immediately reported on 25.04.2007 in the Police Station Damana; copy whereof has been placed on the record as Annexure 4. It was a case of total loss. The incident was immediately reported on 25.04.2007 in the Police Station Damana; copy whereof has been placed on the record as Annexure 4. That OP no.2 drove the truck not in a professional and prudent manner because he had failed to take note of the narrow width of that approach road with a number of low hanging over head electric wires. Besides claiming indemnification to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs, compensation for mental torture and humiliation has been claimed in the sum of Rs 2 lacs. 2. OP No.1 has not contested the complaint. OP No.2 in his written version has taken preliminary objection that his relationship with the complainant as a "consumer" has not been established and as such he is not liable to indemnify the complainant. On facts, his defence is that he had plied the truck loaded with house hold goods from Lucknow to its safe destination at Plaura in a safe and prudent manner because he reached in time on 24.04.2007 at the destination. There he had asked the complainant to get his goods unloaded from the truck but he insisted to get them unloaded at his place of residence. He coerced him through his subordinates to take the truck up to his residence. In this manner he was forced to drive his truck against his will and abruptly the over-hanging electric wires touched the vehicle. Undoubtedly, fire had broken out immediately but it was controlled on the spot. He denies that house hold articles were completely destroyed in the fire and complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs 15 lacs. Negligence on the part of the complainant is attributed to the fact that after having the knowledge that the passage leading to his residence was narrow he still forced him (OP No.2) to take the truck towards his residence and enroute fire broke out. According to him the loss claimed is inflated. OP No.4 & 5 in their written version have admitted that loaded truck in question got entangled with III Phase 4 wire low tension net work and got fire. According to them, it was the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck who had not taken precautionary measures while crossing under the low tension network of the over head lines on the road side. According to them, it was the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck who had not taken precautionary measures while crossing under the low tension network of the over head lines on the road side. It is specifically pleaded that low tension net work was possessing requisite ground clearance. 3. The complainant had deposed on affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel appearing for OP No.2. OP No.2 has also filed his affidavit on oath and he was cross examined by the Ld. counsel of the complainant. In his cross examination, the complainant has reiterated that the challan file pertaining to the goods unloaded in the truck was in the custody of OP No.2 for the purpose of showing the same to the police personnel in case of any enquiry and was to be handed over to the complainant after the delivery of the goods but when the fire had broken out the challan was not delivered. He has denied that either he or his subordinates had ever compelled or coerced OP No.2 to ply his loaded truck on a particular road. Rather his subordinates had helped him by showing correct route for unloading the goods at his residence which was house no. 7, in Officers Colony BSF Camp plaura. It is denied that the vehicle was taken through that bridge which has very narrow width and is of low height. O.P No.2 in his cross examination has admitted that he was the employee of the OP No.3 who had been engaged by OP No.1 to take the goods from the residence of the complainant for unloading at the place of destination i.e. BSF Camp Plaura. He showed his ignorance about the number of loaded goods and their value but reiterated that army personnel forcibly had taken him alongwith the loaded goods in the truck to a route of their choice where the vehicle struck against electric wires which were over hanging and the goods caught fire. He was driving the truck in first gear at a slow speed and the road was plain. The road on which he was forced to ply the vehicle was not suitable to ply that type of heavy vehicle of abnormal height 4. Heard the arguments. 5. Mr. K.K.Jandiyal Ld. He was driving the truck in first gear at a slow speed and the road was plain. The road on which he was forced to ply the vehicle was not suitable to ply that type of heavy vehicle of abnormal height 4. Heard the arguments. 5. Mr. K.K.Jandiyal Ld. Counsel of the complainant has contended that there was a relationship of "consumer" and "service provider" between the complainant and OP No.1 who on his own had engaged the services of OP No.3 as well as OP No.2 for making a delivery of the loaded house hold goods in the truck bearing no. HR-30-H-7569 owned by OP No.3 and driven by OP No.2. OP No.2 has admitted that he had carried the house hold articles in the truck in question from the residence of the complainant who at that time was putting up at Lucknow and they had to be delivered at his new residence in a place located in the Head Quarter of BSF situated in "Plaura" nearby the city of Jammu. The only defence of OP No.2 is that he was forcibly taken through the road to unload the goods which was not safe for his truck to be plied as it was a heavy vehicle. The counsel of OP No.2 has contended that his client was not negligent in plying the truck but he was forcibly taken to that road which was not suited for such type of vehicle to be plied there. The argument is not based on any record or evidence. There is not even an iota of evidence even to suggest a view that under compelling circumstance OP No.2 had plied the truck on that road. The defence of OP No.2 gets nullified from the plea taken by OPs No.4 and 5 in Para No.4 of their written version wherein they have stated that the low tension electric wire network on that road was having requisite ground clearance but the loaded truck was plied in a negligent and careless manner had it got entangled with III phase 4 wire low tension net work and the fire broke out because of the violent impact. The driver had not taken precautionary measures. The counsel appearing from the complainant in support of his contentions has cited the case of Nath Bros. The driver had not taken precautionary measures. The counsel appearing from the complainant in support of his contentions has cited the case of Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd. (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 553, wherein it has been held that liability of a common carrier is the same as that of an insurer. Carrier has to take due care of the goods as he would have taken of his own goods. He would be liable for the loss or damage caused to the goods due to his own negligence or criminal act or that of his agent or servants, notwithstanding any special contract limiting his liability as envisaged under S. 6 of Carriers Act. Even if the goods were booked with the carrier "at owner's risk" that would not exempt the carrier from his own negligence or that of his agent or servants. 6. We have considered the pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing on their behalf. While having a recourse of S.11 of the J&K Consumer Protection Act we have no hesitation in holding the view that before the Consumer Fora mere preponderance of possibility suggests that a fact is said to be proved when the forum either believes that it exists or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The evidence on the record has unhesitantly established the fact that OP No.2 had plied the truck in question in a careless and negligent manner which resulted into causing the accident in which fire broke out from the electric low tension wire after the truck had hit with the pole and the goods carried in the truck were burnt and reduced to ashes. It was a total loss of the goods and applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decided case Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd. (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 553 (supra), we hold OP No.1 liable to reimburse the complainant about the loss suffered by him. In this view of the matter, we direct OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd. (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 553 (supra), we hold OP No.1 liable to reimburse the complainant about the loss suffered by him. In this view of the matter, we direct OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of the loss (24.04.2007) till the payment is made alongwith litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs.8000/-. The complaint is consigned to the records.