SWAMI PURUSHOTTAMCHARYA Vs. PREET FREIGHT CARRIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 24.2.2001, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No.1863/1999 - entitled Swami Purushottamacharya V/s. M/s. Preet Freight Carrier and Ors.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the appellant had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had engaged the services of respondent No.3 for transporting his household goods/articles from Mumbai to Delhi. It was stated that respondent No.3, for the abovesaid purpose, had arranged Truck No. DI 1l C0733, belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was further stated, in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that 38 packages, containing household articles, were loaded in the abovesaid truck on 26.6.1999 for being transported from Mumbai to Delhi. It was averred that by mistake, in the challan, issued by respondent No.3, the number of packages/items was mentioned as '36' instead of '38'. The truck, carrying the household articles of the appellant, reached Delhi on 1.7.1999 and only 35 items, out of 38 items, loaded in the truck, were delivered to the appellant. The appellant protested about the short delivery and not being satisfied with the reply given by the respondents, reported the matter to the police. In addition, the appellant also filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act, before the District Forum, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and claiming a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the loss of the articles in question.

(3.) The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by respondents and in the reply/written version, filed on their behalf, it was stated that only '36' items were delivered by the appellant to the truck driver, an employee of respondent No.2, for being transported from Mumbai to Delhi and the appellant subsequently managed interpolation in the list by making the number of items as '38' instead of '36'. The respondents admitted short delivery of one bag from the goods, delivered to the truck driver. It was stated by the respondents that the appellant had fabricated false evidence to exaggerate his claim by tampering with the list of articles and challan.