M S FREIGHT CARRIERS Vs. JOHN DISTILLERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 8.5.2007 of Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, dismissing appeal against the order dated 6.7.2004 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to pay amount of Rs. 3,88,700 with interest from 31.10.2000 and pay Rs. 10,000 towards damages for the hardship, etc. caused to the respondent.

(2.) Respondent/complainant is a Limited Company manufacturing liquor. They engaged the services of the petitioner/opposite party to transport consignment of liquor of the value of Rs. 3,88,700 by road to Nagaland. Consignment was seized en route by the SHO, PS Amanaka, Raipur where it was stored in a godown by the petitioner. The reasons for seizure was that the godown did not have permission for storage of liquor. Because of confiscation/seizure, the consignment was not delivered to the consignee. Complaint, thus, came to be filed on 1.11.2002 claiming the said amount and other reliefs against the petitioner. On 30.12.2002, notice was ordered to be issued to the petitioner in the complaint on the Calcutta address returnable on 6.2.2003. Written statement was filed by the petitioner on 29.1.2003. On 6.2.2003, the case was postponed to 10.3.2003 and on that date it was again adjourned to 16.4.2003 on which date affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the respondent. Petitioner was given time to file affidavit by way of evidence by 11.7.2003 and as there was continuous absence after the filing of written version, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 11.7.2003. Thereafter, ex parte award came to be passed against the petitioner on 6.7.2004 by the District Forum. Appeal against District Forum's order was dismissed at admission stage by the State Commission by the order under challenge.

(3.) Main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. R.N. Saha for the petitioner is that the petitioner did not receive any notice from the District Forum after the filing of written version and, therefore, the ex parte award made by the District Forum as affirmed by State Commission is bad in law. In our view, after the filing of written version, no notice was required to be issued for the subsequent dates by the District Forum and it was for the petitioner to have attended the proceedings before the Forum as and when the case was fixed. Order of District Forum is based on the affidavit and other material produced by the respondent. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error whatsoever in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. R.P. dismissed.