BAGAI GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD Vs. EXPLORERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 31st July, 1999 passed in Case No.955/92 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) The respondent/complainant booked a consignment of 6 boxes containing automobiles parts valuing Rs.61,310/- as described in the bill vide GR No.86478 dated 10.11.1989 in the name of 'self' to be delivered at Bilaspur. The goods sent were purchased by M/s. R. S. Enterprises on 9.11.1989 vide bill No.019357 of the delivery note in the bill was given as 020658. The consignment was to be delivered at Bilaspur on the production of the documents. The complainant alleged that the delivery of the said consignment was refused by M/s. R. S. Enterprises who after opening one box found stones in it hence did not accept the consignment. The complainant wrote a letter dated 21.12.1989 received by the opposite party on 23.12.1989 to re-book the goods at Indore and to deliver the same to the complainant, but, the goods were not delivered. The respondent filed a complaint on 4.19.1992 which was resisted by the appellant, the District Forum after appreciation of evidence allowed the complaint having found deficiency in service in not delivering the consignment and ordered to pay the amount of Rs.61,310/- with compensation of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Aggrieved of that order, the appellant preferred an Appeal No.404/95 which was allowed vide order dated 31.5.1999 and the case was remitted to the District Forum for dedicing it afresh after affording an opportunity to parties to lead additional evidence. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence having found deficiency in service in not delivering the consignment to the complainant ordered to make the payment of Rs.61,310/- with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 16.11.1989, the compensation of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- as costs of the proceedings.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Sunil Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. K. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.