DHARMENDRA CARPET Vs. LUJTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 22.9.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow allowing appeal against the order dated 23.10.2006 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.

(2.) It is not in dispute that petitioner/complainant had handed over on 16.6.92, 60 pieces of Indian Handknotted woolen pile carpets of the total value of Rs.4,19,600.16 to respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 at Mirzapur for being carried from New Delhi to Amsterdam, Holland. Respondent No. 1/opposite party No.1 Airlines after receiving the carpets issued airway bill No. 220 -2355 -7730 dated 19.6.92 Delhi/Amsterdam. It is further not in dispute that M/s. Davoud Perziosche Tapijten, ADM, DE, Ruyterweg 50, 1056 GK Amsterdam, buyer did not take delivery of the carpets in question and the petitioner was duly informed of the delivery status vide letters dated 5.8.92, 25.8.92 and 27.8.92 by the Airlines. Petitioner failed to give alternate instructions to the Airlines despite reminders dated 3.9.92, 10.9.92, 13.10.92 and 19.11.92. It is also not in dispute that vide letter dated 2.7.93 the petitioner was informed that the carpets in question were due for auction shortly and thereafter by the letter dated 17.11.93 the petitioner was informed of carpets had been auctioned on 14.9.93 and 26.10.93. Details of auction amount and the outstanding dues too were intimated to the petitioner. The carpets were auctioned after more than a year of its reaching Amsterdam due to the failure of petitioner to arrange alternate buyer. In this backdrop and having heard Shri Rajesh Chadha for petitioner we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(3.) Revision petition dismissed.