GATI LIMITED Vs. HITESHI ISRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below, M/s. Gati Limited, a Cargo Carrier, which was opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum has filed the present petition purportedly under Section21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'). The consumer dispute raised in the complaint filed by the Respondent Hiteshi Israni related to the non-settlement of a claim for compensation, which the above named complainant had lodged with the petitioner company in relation to the loss and injury suffered by him due to the damage of certain household articles like Microwave Oven, high quality dinner set, wine glasses, tea set, coffee set etc., along with certain articles handed over to the above named carrier for its carriage by air from Jaipur to Mumbai against payment of the carriage charges. According to the complainant, he had suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- due to the breakage / damage of the said articles. The District Forum-II, Jaipur vide its order dated 13.08.2008 allowed the complaint with direction to the opposite party/Cargo Carrier to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of the order, a sum of

(2.) We have heard Mr. S.K. Jha, counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He would assail the findings and orders passed by the Fora below mainly on the ground that the same are not based on the correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence and material produced on record. In this connection, he invited reference to certain documentary evidence brought on record. He submitted that no cogent evidence was led on record to establish that the articles handed over to the petitioner were in fact damaged or in any case to show that their value was Rs. 40,000/-. In this connection, we may refer to a letter /certificate issued by TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing dated 05.12.1997, which has been issued by a certain Mahtesh Bassapa Gudi, who appears to be working as the agent of the petitioner for the purpose of delivery of the various consignments received by the petitioner for carriage and delivery. In this certificate, the above named Bassapa Gudi had certified as under:

(3.) Counsel would assail the said certificate on the ground that it has not been signed by anyone on behalf of the petitioner and the responsibility of the petitioner cannot be fixed on the basis of the said certificate. We have noted down this submission only to be rejected because from the material placed on record, it can be safely inferred that the TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing were engaged by the petitioner for the purpose of delivery of the consignment in question and therefore, the certificate issued by the representative of TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing cannot be disowned and questioned by the petitioner. TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing followed the matter with the petitioner by issuing a number of reminders but without any response from the petitioner.