ORDER Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President- Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are, that respondent No.1 had booked 275 apple boxes through the appellant for being transported from Kufri to Chandigarh. It had charged rupee 1 per box as fee, appellant has branch at Khara Pathhar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla. It has been constituted for the benefit of growers to provide them transport facilities for the carriage of their apple produce to different markets throughout the country on control freight after having insured the same. It was for this purpose that fee of rupee 1 per box is charged by the appellant. 2. It is further admitted between the parties, that appellant had provided truck bearing Registration No. HP16-1779. Its owner was respondent No.2 and the driver was respondent No.3. On payment of Rs. 275/ - as aforesaid receipt No. 00592 dated 20.9.2005 was issued by the appellant. In addition to this Rs. 7344/- was paid by respondent No.1 as freight for transportation. Goods Receipt dated 20.9.2005 was issued by the appellant. 3. In the light of the aforesaid admitted facts according to respondent No.1 when the goods did not reach at Chandigarh, he contacted the appellant, but without any consequence. In this background his brother who is an advocate lodged complaint at Police Station, Jubbal on 24.9.2005. In spite of police report, as well as appellant having been asked to look into the matter nothing concrete came out of it, this caused financial loss to respondent No.1. Legal notice was issued before filing of the complaint by him to the appellant. It was duly replied to by the appellant. While contesting the claim of the appellant, its stand was that while the goods in question were in the vehicle, it had a break down at Patti Dhank. Respondent No.1 on 20.9.2005 itself from the spot of break down without the consent of the appellant shifted the apple boxes to another vehicle which proceeded from the said spot, therefore, appellant was not liable. This resulted in filing of the complaint on account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellan t, as well as the truck owner and his driver. 4. District Forum below after hearing the parties has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 81,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, i.e. 29.5.2006 till making of full payment. 4. District Forum below after hearing the parties has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 81,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, i.e. 29.5.2006 till making of full payment. In addition to this, damages in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, besides litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/- has also been allowed. Appellant as well as respondent NO.2-owner of the truck, both have been held jointly and severally liable for payment of this amount to the appellant. Both of them have directed to comply with this order within 45 days after the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order. 5. In this behalf it may be appropriate to mention here, that so far respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle in question is concerned, it is not aggrieved from the impugned order. He filed cross-objections, however at the time of hearing Bushehar Fruit Growers v. Om Parkash Chauhan & Assn. 91 of the appeal it was stated by Ms. Kotwal, learned counsel that since cross-objections are not maintainable, those may be dismissed as withdrawn. This prayer is accepted. 6. Mr. Sood learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that his client would have been liable in case either the truck had met with accident resulting in damage to the apple boxes being transported in it, or else it had evaporated with the goods being transported in it. Admittedly this is not the situation in the present case. According to him 275 apple boxes were transported by respondent No.1 when the truck in question had a mechanical break down and was $tranded near Patti Dhank. In these circumstances, by his own act and conduct said respondent negated the contract and at the same time exonerated the appellant of its liability. 7. While further advancing the case of appellant reliance was placed by Mr. Sood on the record from police investigation file, and the statements recorded by the police on the basis of complaint lodged regarding apple boxes having not reached the destination, i.e. Chandigarh. In this behalf he also referred to the statement of the mechanic who had repaired the vehicle of respondent No.2 at Mani Mazra where it was toe-chained. Thus according to Mr. Sood, District Forum below fell into grave error by ignoring these material facts while passing the impugned order. He thus prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 8. Ms. Thus according to Mr. Sood, District Forum below fell into grave error by ignoring these material facts while passing the impugned order. He thus prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 8. Ms. Kotwal learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the pleas urged on behalf of the appellant and further submitted, that since goods were removed by respondent No.1 from the stranded vehicle of his client due to break down at Patti Dhank, as such he relieved respondent No.2 of his liability if any, as a carrier. Alternatively and without in any manner conceding the claim of respondent No.1, she further submitted that liability if any, is that of the appellant because there was no privity of contract between her client on one side, and the respondent No.1 on the other. Thus she prayed for dismissal of the appeal and in any case to hold appellant liable for payment of compensation if any, by exonerating her client. 9. It was not disputed at the time of hearing, that rupee 1 per box is charged by the appellant for ensuring that the goods booked reached the destination for which those were meant to be transported through the agency, i.e. the appellant. Truck for carriage of his apple crop was admittedly provided by the appellant. Thus it is clear that in order to protect the interest of the growers, associations like appellant are there, and to ensure that the goods are not only transported at regulated rates, but those also reach their destination well in time. For this purpose extra money is charged by the appellant, besides freight paid to the transporter like respondent No.2. This makes it obligatory that the fruit growers are not swindled by unscrupulous transporters as is the situation in the present case. As such submission of Mr. Sood, that his client would only be liable in case either truck meets with an accident resulting in apple boxes transported in it being damaged to the· extent resultant loss, or the truck alongwith the goods vanished into the thin air is being noted to be rejected. As such submission of Mr. Sood, that his client would only be liable in case either truck meets with an accident resulting in apple boxes transported in it being damaged to the· extent resultant loss, or the truck alongwith the goods vanished into the thin air is being noted to be rejected. We are of the view that after having charged money for ensuring delivery of the goods being transported in the vehicle of respondent No.2, it is for the appellant' as well as the owner of the vehicle to see to it, that the goods reached their destination at Chandigarh in the present case. Thus all the pleas to the contrary urged on behalf of the appellant and supported by learned counsel for respondent No.2 are hereby rejected. 10. So far reliance placed in the police investigation file including statements of Om Parkash Chauhan respondent No.1-complainant is concerned, it is wholly misconceived. Even if we take into account such statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. fact remains that in case appellant wanted to take benefit of such statement, then complainants should have been called for his cross-examination, with a view to test his veracity before the District Forum. And at the same time the investigating officer should also have been examined who had recorded the said statement. Why no such attempt was made, learned counsel for the appellant had no answer. 11. Faced with this situation, Mr. Sood submitted that Om Parkash has clearly. admitted in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. having transshipped the apple boxes at Patti Dhank where the truck carrying those from Malthi had a break down and was stranded to another truck. Nothing prevented the appellant and for that matter even for respondent No.2 to have confronted the said respondent No.1 with his previous statement. This also applies to the statement referred to by Mr. Sood of the mechanic from Mani Mazra. ' 12. Now coming to the submissions urged on behalf of respondent No.2. Admittedly after having covered the distance of about 18 KMs., the truck had a break down at Patti Dhank. Distance of Chandigarh from Melthi is more than 200 KMs. It is admitted case of all the parties to this appeal, that full amount of freight was paid to respondent No. 2 by the respondent No.1. Admittedly after having covered the distance of about 18 KMs., the truck had a break down at Patti Dhank. Distance of Chandigarh from Melthi is more than 200 KMs. It is admitted case of all the parties to this appeal, that full amount of freight was paid to respondent No. 2 by the respondent No.1. Whether any amount was refunded by respondent No.2, because admittedly his vehicle was not in a position to transport the apple boxes in this case beyond 18 KMs., learned counsel for respondent No.2 had no answer. In all fairness the amount should have been refunded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, that is admittedly not the situation in the present case. Not only this, he should have obtained the receipt also regarding trans-hipment of apple boxes to another truck. There is none on the record. As such word from the mouth of the respondent No.2 can't be accepted in this behalf. As also the plea urged on his behalf that there was no. privity of contract. 13. According to the appellant brother of the respondent No.1 had transhipped the goods at Patti Dhank on 20.9.2005 itself after break-down, whereas according to learned counsel for respondent No.2 this was done on 22.9.2005. On this date according to her the vehicle was toe-chained to Mani Mazra. This shows that either the appellant or respondent No.2 is telling lie to escape liability. 14. At this stage, Mr. Sood submitted that after having entrusted the apple boxes to respondent No.2 his client stood exonerated of liability if any, therefore it is for respondent No.2 to explain as to what happened to the apple boxes. We say nothing in this behalf and leave this question open. However at the same time, we hold that because of inter-se controversy between appellant on one side and respondent No.2 on the other, respondent cannot be made to suffer. Reason being that they can settle their dispute by taking recourse to a court of law against each other. But this would not mean that respondent No.1 is not entitled to be indemnified as was urged on behalf of the appellant and respondent No.2. Appellant if so advised will be free to initiate such action as per law against respondent No.2, if it so chooses. And in such a situation, this order will not come in its way. 15. No other point was urged. Appellant if so advised will be free to initiate such action as per law against respondent No.2, if it so chooses. And in such a situation, this order will not come in its way. 15. No other point was urged. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, while dismissing this appeal and upholding the order of District Forum, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 150/2006, dated 10.3.2009, it is ordered that in case appellant has any grievance and/or any claim against respondent No.2 owner of the truck in question, former will be at liberty to initiate such action under law of the land before a competent court of jurisdiction, and in such a situation limitation will not come in his way for the grant of admissible relief. Subject to these observations, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties free of cost as per rules. M.R.B.