M/S. OM CONCRETE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. vs GURMEET SINGH

Though notice already stands served upon both the parties, no one is present for either of them. On last two dates of hearing an Advocate, Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, had appeared for the petitioner but he did not file any Vakalatnama. We have, therefore, proceeded to consider the revision petition on merits.

The complainant/respondent Mr. Gurmeet Singh purchased 55 RCC pipes vide bill dated 17.05.2007 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 11,440/-. He also paid an amount of Rs. 5,615/- towards transportation charges. When the goods reached the premises of the complainant, it was found by him that the pipes had been damaged. Therefore, the pipes were not got unloaded from him from the truck in which they were transported. The pipes were returned through truck driver Mr. Rajender Singh, after taking signature of one Raj Kumar, representative of the opposite party. When the complainant sought refund of the amount paid by him the opposite party did not make said payment. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 17,055/- alongwith compensation etc.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company on the ground that the complainant himself had arranged the truck for transporting the goods and therefore it was not responsible for the goods getting damaged during transportation. The petitioner also denied having charged transportation charges from the complainant. The petitioner also denied the case of the complainant that the aforesaid goods were returned to it and alleged that Mr. Rajender Singh and Mr. Raj Kumar were not known to it.

Vide its order dated 15.01.2008, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 31.03.2009, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 17,055/- to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, as costs to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the opposite party is before us by way of this revision petition.

It is not in dispute that the goods in question were purchased by the complainant from the petitioner. The only dispute involved in this case is as to whether transportation of the goods were arranged by the transporter himself or it was arranged by the petitioner Company. The State Commission on perusal of the invoice dated 17.05.2007 found an endorsement recorded by the complainant in Punjabi language stating therein that he was returning the pipes since he had received them in broken condition and therefore the amount of Rs. 17,055/- be returned to him. The State Commission also felt that the complainant was not likely to arrange transportation of the goods on his own. Normally it is the purchaser who arranges for transportation of the goods in such cases.

In exercise of our revisional jurisdiction, we will not be justified in interfering with the finding of facts recorded by the State Commission unless the same is shown to be perverse. In our view, it cannot be said that no person acting on the material available to the State Commission would have returned the finding which the said Commission returned in this case. Therefore, we will not be justified in interfering with the finding of facts that the transportation of the goods was arranged by the petitioner Company which had also charged transportation charges from the complainant. Accordingly, no ground for interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.