(1.) A common order in all these petitions will suffice. It is the opposite party which is the petitioner in all these matters. Respondents were complainants in the complaints filed by them complaining deficiency in service by the opposite party, a common carrier.
(2.) Complainants in all these petitions sent various consignments of tea to M/s. State Enterprises, a common consignee. The consignment of tea was entrusted to the petitioner. Freight charges in all these consignments were agreed to be paid by the consignee at Jaipur, the destination at the time of taking delivery by the consignee. Documents like invoice, goods receipt and other connected documents to the consignment were negotiated through the State Bank of Travancore at Coonoor, Tamil Nadu for getting the payment of the value of the consignments from the branch of the Bank at Jaipur. It would appear that in the meanwhile complainant discounted the value of the consignments from the Bank at Coonoor and got the value of the goods. However, subsequently documents were returned by the Bank to the complainants unpaid. Allegation was that the petitioner delivered the consignments to the consignee without production of invoice, goods receipt and other documents. Complaining deficiency in service all these complaints were filed.
(3.) It is the contention of the opposite party that since goods were not taken delivery of for a long period there was no alternative left for the petitioner but to auction the goods as per the terms of the goods receipt and that the money realised by auction of the goods was not even sufficient to meet the freight. District Forum after examining the case came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and directed the petitioner to pay to each of the complainants the value of the goods with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of entrustment of the goods to the petitioner till payment. Cost of Rs. 1,000/- in each of the complaints was also awarded to the complainants.