DELUXE ROADLINES PVT LTD Vs. MEHTA MAHENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 25. 10. 2007 of A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dismissing appeal against the order dated 6. 7. 2007 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 were directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 16,000 being the value of lost bale, Rs. 5,000 as compensation and cost, to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that on 24. 6. 2004, the respondent had booked a bale of cloth of the value of Rs. 16,000 for being handed over to Sri Asha Pura Textiles, Ahmedabad with opposite party No. 1 vide G. C. note bearing No. 146839. Amount of Rs. 200 was paid towards freight by the respondent to opposite party No. 1. Since the booked bale did not reach the consignee, the respondent got two legal notices dated 8. 9. 2006 and 23. 10. 2006 served on the petitioner which is the registered office of O. P. No. 1. On getting no response, respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs against the petitioner and opposite party No. 1. Both the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 remained absent before the District Forum despite service of notices on them by publication in newspaper and case was proceeded ex parte against them. In support of the complaint, Prakash Kumar, Prop. of the respondent filed his affidavit and certain documents including the copies of legal notices dated 8. 9. 2006 and 23. 10. 2006 along with their postal remarks and acknowledgement cards. Believing that evidence, the District Forum allowed the complaint in the manner noticed above and appeal against Forum's order filed by the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 was dismissed by the State Commission.

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. S. K. Sharma for the petitioner is that the bale of cloth in question is still lying in good condition with the petitioner and it is ready to hand it over to the respondent. Bale was booked for transportation through the petitioner's branch at Kurnool in June, 2004 and after a lapse of about three years and nine months, it must have considerably deteriorated in value. Thus, question of return of bale at this point of time does not arise. Order of District Forum which has been affirmed in appeal is based on the unrebutted affidavit of the proprietor of the respondent and other documentary evidence. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the two orders passed by Fora below. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. R. P. dismissed.