GITANE EXPORTS Vs. SODHI FREIGHT CARRIERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the complainant M/s. Gitane Exports, Ludhiana challenging order of Distt. Forum, Ludhiana dated September 16, 1997 whereby their complaint filed against the carrier Sodhi Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed. Facts are brief which are not disputed. The complainant despatched hoisery goods from Ludhiana to Gwalior through the opposite party. At the destination the goods were not collected by the consignee, hence the complainant approached the opposite party with a request dated June 27, 1996 for re-booking of the goods from Gwalior to Ludhiana. The original Goods Receipt earlier obtained was also sent with the request. There was no response from the opposite party inspite of notice having sent, hence Distt. Forum was approached by the complainant. The opposite party was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum. The District Forum on the allegations made in the complaint supported by the affidavit of the complainant came to the conclusion that there was no contract entered into for re-booking of the goods back to the Ludhiana between the parties hence question of deficiency in rendering service did not arise. Reliance was placed on the decision of Karnataka State Commission in Anne s Collection (P) Ltd. V/s. National Travel Service Pvt. Ltd., 1996 2 CPJ 72. It was held therein that there was no payment of consideration for the alleged contract. In the present case also, it was found that there was no consideration for the proposed contract.

(2.) Mr. R. K. Nayyar, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued on the basis of the decision of National Commission in Air India V/s. N. Uddavan, 1995 1 CPJ 190, that since the opposite party did not call upon the complainant to pay re-booking charges or demurrage, which they were duty bound to do, an inference could be drawn that the contract was entered into between the parties for re-booking of the goods. We have gone through the decision of National Commission referred to above and we are of the opinion that no help can be taken by the appellant from that decision in this case. Even in this case National Commission had observed that there has to be a contract and mere proposal or offer made by the complainant for rebooking of the goods will not suffice. It was enabling reason that was dealt with in that case that inspite of letters written by the carrier for payment of demurrage charges and re-booking charges, the same were not paid by the complainant. In our view the fact in the present case remains that no consideration was either agreed upon or was paid by the complainant to complete the contract of re-booking. It was only his request which was not acceded to as there is no material on the record to prove that. Since there was no valid subsiding contract, the question of proving deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party did not arise. The District Forum was fully justified in dismissing the complaint. While dismissing the appeal, we affirm the order of the District Forum.