PANKAJ TRAVEL vs K.P.SHARMA

THE present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated the 9th August, 2000, passed by District Forum No. I, in Complaint Case No. 255/2000 entitled Shri K.P. Sharma v. M/s. Pankaj Travels.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri K.P. Sharma, had filed a complaint in the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring that M/s. Pankaj Dyes of Jaipur (Rajasthan) had purchased 10 T.C. Rough Bore Wire Drawing Dyes and other material from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- against Bill No. 415 dated the 22.2.1998. It was alleged that the respondent made a parcel of the abovesaid goods for transportation to Jaipur (Rajasthan) and on 22.2.1998 itself, had booked the same with the appellant for transportation from Delhi to Jaipur after paying the necessary transportation charges. It was stated that the aforesaid parcel was not delivered by the appellant to the addressee despite prolonged wait and on receiving the above information from the end of the addressee, the respondent inquired about the parcel from the appellant but no response was given to the respondent by the appellant. It was stated that on account of non-delivery of the parcel to the consignee by the appellant, the consignee M/s. Pankaj Dyes of Jaipur to whom the goods had been sold, had taken back the money from the respondent. It was stated in the complaint that the respondent suffered a lot of physical and mental agony, loss in his business reputation. In the complaint, filed by the respondent, it was prayed that the appellant be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- being the cost of the goods together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of receipt of parcel till realisation. THE respondent also claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of sufferings, agony and loss of business reputation together with interest. THE respondent also claimed the cost of the proceedings. The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant, who filed a written version taking certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint under provisions of the Act. It was also stated that in view of the specific clause contained in the receipt, Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction and the goods in question were to be collected from the office of the appellant.

The learned District Forum, while rejecting the objections/pleas, taken by the appellant, has held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 9,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from 22.2.1998 till payment. The learned District Forum has also awarded cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well-reasoned order. The same suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.