ROADWAY INDIA LTD Vs. MORMUGAO STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party. Respondent/complainant booked consignments through the petitioner to be delivered to M/s. M.N. Forgings Ltd., Viralimalai on door delivery basis on 26.5.1998 and 27.5.1998. On consignments not being delivered, the respondent sent letters dated 24.6.1998 and 22.7.1998 asking the delivery status thereof to the petitioner but there was no reply. Thereafter, legal notice was got issued by the respondent on 31.8.1998 to which also no reply was sent by the petitioner nor consignments delivered. On ground of deficiency in service on part of petitioner, the respondent filed complaint claiming amount of Rs. 4,98,473 which was contested by the petitioner. Main plea taken in written version was that an amount of Rs. 27,655 was due towards freight since February, 1998 from the respondent which it had failed to pay. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Appeal filed against District Forum's order by the respondent was allowed by the State Commission by the order dated 23.9.2005 with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 3,82,697 with interest to the respondent. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Anubhav Kumar for petitioner on admission.

(3.) Copy of the complaint filed by respondent is at pages 33-35 while of the written version filed by petitioner with affidavit of T.L. Sharma, in-charge at pages 38-48. Booking of two consignments with the petitioner on 26.5.1998 and 27.5.1998 is not in dispute. In para No. 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that the respondent sent letters dated 24.6.1998 and 22.7.1998 to the petitioner asking the delivery status of the booked consignments but no reply to any of these letters was sent by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent got he legal notice dated 31.8.1998 sent, of which also no reply was sent by the petitioner. Though in corresponding para of written version the receipt of said two letters and legal notice was admitted but it was stated that those were replied. However, the dates on which replies were sent have not been mentioned. In the affidavit of T.L. Sharma, filed by way of evidence, the dates of alleged replies to the letters and legal notice have not been indicated. Amount of Rs. 27,655 towards freight pertains to the consignments not booked on 26.5.1998 and 27.5.1998. Assuming for the sake of argument that such an amount was due to the petitioner, the respondent was not intimated after booking of consignments in question up-to-date of filing of complaint in March,1999 that delivery of consignments to M/s. M.N. Forgings was being withheld due to non-payment of that amount. G.Rs. also do not provide for withholding of consignments for non-payment of previous freight charges. On ground of non-delivery of consignments in question, the petitioner had been rightly held deficient in service and directed to make the payment of Rs. 3,82,697 with interest by the State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in aforesaid order dated 23.9.2005 warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.