TNT INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAMESH SAWALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioner.

(2.) VERY briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent sent certain material using the services of the petitioner. This material was not delivered, this, alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,746 being the cost of the material as also awarded certain other relief including cost of Rs. 500. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who by a cryptic order dismissed this appeal. The order of the State Commission is as follows: "None appears for the appellant. Appellant has sent a communication stating that the order passed by the District Forum has been complied with fully by the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of infructuous."

(3.) A plain reading of this will make it clear that the money was deposited without prejudice to the rights in the appeal pending before the State Commission. In our view, the State Commission misread this communication dated 4.10 2004 and dismissed the complaint as having satisfied the decree passed by the District Forum, whereas that was not the intent, as per the contents of letter dated 4.10.2004. Before us, the petitioner remained absent despite notice and also not removed the defects which he was directed to remove vide Commission's letter dated 1.6.2005. We have very carefully gone through the material on record as also order passed by the District Forum. The petitioner admits that the consignment was not delivered but he wishes to state that the relief given by the District Forum exceeds the term of agreement, i.e., the receipt issued by them, which stipulates that in case of loss the petitioner shall be liable to pay only 20 US $ per kilo, and in this case admittedly as per receipt the weight of the consignment was 2 kg., hence the complainant was entitled to equivalent of 40 US $ only. We have very carefully gone through the receipt. As held severally, the document cannot be said to be an agreement between the parties, as this receipt does not bear the signature of the complainant. Terms and conditions of the receipt would have been binding on the complainant only if he had signed this. In the document filed before us by the petitioner, we see no signature of the complainant to make it binding on him, hence we see no merit in this plea and uphold the reliefs awarded by the District Forum. We see no merit in the revision petition filed before us, hence dismissed.