AEROFLOT RUSSIAN AIRLINES TOLSTOY HOUSE Vs. COSMIC ENTERPRISES & 2 ORS ; LEMUIR EXPRESS; LEMUIR AIR EXPRESS, BHARATPUR HOUSE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.05.2012, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 102/2000, "M/s Aeroflot Russian Airlines vs. Cosmic Enterprises & Anr." vide which, the said appeal was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution, saying that none had appeared for the appellant despite the cause list having been displayed on the website of the Commission. The said appeal had been filed before the State Commission against the order dated 28.08.1999, passed by the District Forum Agra in consumer complaint No. 887/95, vide which the said complaint had been allowed.

(2.) The complainants Cosmic Enterprises is a proprietorship firm which filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging that they booked 56 cases, containing 600 pairs of leather shoes with the Opposite Party 1 & 2, Lemuir Air Express for supplying the same to a firm at Kiev, Ukraine. The said firm dispatched the goods through the petitioner, Aeroflot Russian Airlines for delivery to the consignee on 21.07.1993, vide airway bill No. 55511805570. It was alleged that the cargo documents were not handed over to the complainants after handing over the consignment to the petitioner/OP-3, and the delivery of the goods was made to the consignee, without following the instructions given by the complainant, resulting in huge loss to them. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.3,50,571/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. on the said amount.

(3.) The said consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide their order dated 28.08.99 and the OPs were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,56,615/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of booking of the consignment. It was directed that 70% of the liability shall be met by the petitioner/OP-3. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP-3 challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. However, the said appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2012, which states as follows:-