VISHAL ROADWAYS Vs. ECONOMIC TRADERS GUJARAT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat dated 21.12.1995 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The facts given rise to this petition are that M/s. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd., complainant, approached the District Forum, Rajkot, for recovery of Rs. 24,530/- on the allegations: That the complainant was manufacturing oil engines and spare parts and selling the same throughout the country. The opponent was a carrier whose services were hired by the complainant for transportation of goods from Rajkot to different places. The opponent was sending the bills to the complainant and the complainant was making payments on account. From 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 the complainant received bills from the opponent for Rs. 5,76,654/- whereas the complainant had paid Rs. 5,97,554/-, i.e. Rs. 20,900/-in excess. Under these premises a claim for refund of Rs. 20,900/- was raised.

(2.) THE complaint was contested. No dispute was raised regarding the dealing between the parties. It was alleged that in November, 1991 Government had decided that maximum weight of only 8 metric tonnes was to be loaded in a truck. As such, the opponent had sent the bills as per new rate but the complainant committed the breach of the terms of the agreement and delivered the goods for loading to the other parties. Thus, from 1.6.1991 to 31.12.1991, there was chances of earning good profit, but the complainant did not deliver the goods for transportation to the opposite party. The opposite party suffered a loss of Rs. 51,000/- on account of breach of terms of the agreement by the complainant. It was also pleaded that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and the complainant should have filed a civil suit and not a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.