NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO LTD Vs. VISHWABHARTI STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Nagpur Golden Transport Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioners ') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission ') in Appeal No.223/2007 decided in favour of Vishwabharti Store, Respondent herein who was the original complainant before the District Forum. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 08.10.2005, Respondent who is a wholesaler of electrical equipments had paid Rs.2,045/ - to the Petitioner for transportation of 20 cartons of electrical equipments worth Rs.2,15,801/ - including tax as replacement for earlier transported and returned defective goods. Petitioners informed Respondent in the second week of November, 2005 that the goods sent for transportation on 08.10.2005 could not be delivered as the truck was stolen and though the truck was subsequently recovered, the goods could not be recovered although efforts were on for recovery. Petitioners assured Respondent that if goods are not recovered within two months, Petitioner would pay Rs.2,15,801/ - in lieu thereof. However, despite a lapse of two months, Petitioners failed to pay this amount and nor were the goods recovered. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioners be directed to pay him Rs.2,15,801.87p with interest @ 12% per annum from 08.10.2005 till realization and any other relief which may be deemed just and proper.

(2.) PETITIONERS even after service did not appear before the District Forum and the case was heard ex parte, theDistrict Forum by taking the facts stated before it by Respondent as correct, allowed the complaint and directed Petitioners to jointly and severally pay the Respondent Rs.1,94,656/ - with interest @ 9% since 09.10.2005 till realization and Rs.1,000/ - as litigation costs. Aggrieved by this, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission after a delay of 10 months beyond the stipulated period for filing an appeal. In their appeal before the State Commission, Petitioners contended that they could not appear before the District Forum and also could not file the present appeal in time because their Manager who had been entrusted with the case developed Cancer and had to leave his job and also the city without issuing necessary instructions to defend the complaint and thereafter to file an appeal before the State Commission. It was under these extenuating circumstances that the Petitioners were ex parte before the District Forum. Consequently, this resulted in a delay in filing the application for certified copy of the order as also an appeal before the State Commission. Hence, the reasons for delay were bonafide and merely technical in nature and the same may be condoned. Petitioners also sought permission under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for placing additional documents on record. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence led before it, dismissed the appeal both on the grounds of limitation as also on merits. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows:

(3.) COUNSEL for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner while admitting that the Petitioners did not appear either personally or through their Counsel before the District Forum, stated that the State Commission erred in not accepting the bonafide reasons for non -appearance and filing additional evidence before it; namely, that their Manager who was entrusted with handling this case, developed cancer and left the city without information. It is also because of this development that there was a delay in filing the appeal. It was also submitted that since the case pertained to a commercial transaction, it was outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Further no evidence or proof was produced that the Respondent 's goods being transported by the Petitioner were electrical goods worth Rs.2,15,801/ - and in fact these were broken bulbs which had little value. Counsel for Respondent on the other hand stated that the Fora below had correctly concluded in their well -reasoned orders that the Petitioners were guilty of deficiency in service and the case was rightly rejected both on grounds of limitation as also on merits by the State Commission.