Tribunals and Commissions

MAHANA TRANSPORT CO. vs BABULAL SANTOSH KUMAR

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 August 2001 · Citation: 2002 3 CPJ 80

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K.Dubey , B.L.Khare J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 481 words
1.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.1998 passed in Case No. 357/1997 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the ''District Forum'').

2.

ADMITTEDLY, the respondent booked a consignment of one bundle of iron Shater Phali weighing 65 kgs. 19 grams of Rs. 1,235/- on 1.6.1995 vide Goods Receipt No. 208 to be transported and delivered to the consignee at Vijaypur on payment of freight charges. However, according to the appellant the consignee who was having a grocery shop refused to take the delivery, hence the consignment received back is lying in the go-down of the appellant. The respondent approached the appellant, but consignment was not delivered, hence a complaint was filed before the District Forum at Morena which was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction on 9.7.1997 for its presentation before the District Forum at Gwalior, which was presented on 21.8.1997. After notice, the appellant filed the defence version and stated that the consignment is lying in the godown of the appellant, which can be collected after payment of demurrage and freight charges. The appellant also stated in the written statement, that the appellant suffered loss of Rs. 4,150/-. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence and on the basis of the evidence on record did not believe the defence version and held that the goods were not delivered to the consignee at Vijaypur, hence ordered that the deduction of the amount of freight charges, the amount of Rs. 1,235/- be paid to the respondent with Rs. 250/- for mental pain and suffering and Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on reappraisal of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the finding so far deficiency in service does not call for any interference. If the consignee refused to take the delivery, the appellant ought to have served the notice on the respondent to take back the consignment so booked on payment of the freight charges and demurrage failing which the goods lying in the godown would be auctioned and the balance shall be recovered. Not only this written statement it is stated that the consignment is lying in the godown and on payment of the amount, the consignment can be collected. In the circumstances, we direct the appellant to deliver the consignment or to pay the amount of Rs. 1,235/- after adjustment of payment of freight charges only with compensation of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings to the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with record of the case. Appeal dismissed.