KATNI BOMBAY ROAD CARRIER Vs. ANIL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the Order dated 8.5.2006 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal allowing appeal against the order dated 4.9.2004 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner/opposite party to pay amount of Rs. 2,03,500 with interest @ 9% from 5.6.1999 as also cost, to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) On 1.7.1998 respondent firm entrusted to the petitioner carrier 100 bags of Dal Masoor weighing 10 tones for transportation from Katni to Chennai. Transportation charges were fixed at Rs. 15,000. Dal was to be delivered to M/s. Al Fatha Enterprises at Chennai. Booked consignment did not reach destination and seem to have been misappropriated during transit. Cheque of Rs. 30,000 given by the petitioner to the respondent on 8.12.1998 was dishonoured for want of sufficient balance. After serving a legal notice dated 17.4.1999, complaint seeking certain reliefs was filed by the respondent which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. By the order dated 8.4.2002, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum with direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,03,500 with interest @ 12% p.a. from 6.7.1998 and also cost of Rs. 2,000. Dissatisfied with the said District Forum's order the petitioner filed appeal No. 718/2002 and an additional objection was taken that no notice as contemplated by the Section 10 of the Carrier Act, 1865 was given by the respondent and complaint was, thus, not maintainable. During the hearing of appeal, the respondent filed copy of the letter dated 28.11.1998 and also with the permission of State Commission amended the complaint that this letter dated 28.11.1998 was given to the petitioner about non-delivery of consignment to the consignee. Thereafter, the State Commission remanded the case to the District Forum to consider the objection of non-compliance of said Section 10. By the said order dated 4.9.2004 the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum but appeal filed by the respondent against District Forum's order, was allowed by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. Arjun Garg whom we have heard on admission, is that the letter dated 28.11.1998 purported to be the notice under Section 1 of the Carrier Act, 1865 (copy at pages 35-Vol. I) had been fabricated by the respondent and was not served on the petitioner. It is pointed out that no reference to this letter was made either in the complaint or in legal notice. Bare reading of the said letter at page 35 would show that the respondent had not only complained of non-delivery of the consignment in question to the consignee but had also called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,03,500 along with interest within 8 days of the receipt of letter failing which legal action was threatened to be initiated against the petitioner. It is admitted by the petitioner that a cheque of Rs. 30,000 was given by it on 8.12.1993 to the petitioner which on presentation was dishonoured on ground of insufficiency of funds. State Commission was of the view that sequences of the facts established the genuineness of the said letter dated 28.11.1998. In all probabilities cheque of Rs. 30,000 dated 8.12.1998 must have been issued by the petitioner in response to above letter dated 28.11.1998. We are, therefore, not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the State Commission in the matter. Receipt of the said letter by the petitioner cannot be doubted. Submission referred to above in regard to the said letter being fabricated and not having been served on petitioner, thus, deserves to be repelled without any merit. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.