NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 31.10.2011 in Appeal No. 2007 of 2008 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)
M/s. Gati Limited,
Having its Registered Office at
1-7-293, MG Road,
Secunderabad – 500 003
And Concerned Branch Office At
Gati Desk to Desk Cargo,
Janta Colony, Jaipur,
Rajasthan … Petitioner (s)
Mr. Hiteshi Israni,
S/o Mr. Justice I.S. Israni,
J-54, Krishna Marg,
C-Scheme, Jaipur … Respondent (s)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner (s) … Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate
DATED: 23rd MAY, 2012
PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below, M/s. Gati Limited, a Cargo Carrier, which was opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum has filed the present petition purportedly under Section21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’). The consumer dispute raised in the complaint filed by the Respondent Hiteshi Israni related to the non-settlement of a claim for compensation, which the above named complainant had lodged with the petitioner company in relation to the loss and injury suffered by him due to the damage of certain household articles like Microwave Oven, high quality dinner set, wine glasses, tea set, coffee set etc., along with certain articles handed over to the above named carrier for its carriage by air from Jaipur to Mumbai against payment of the carriage charges. According to the complainant, he had suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- due to the breakage / damage of the said articles. The District Forum-II, Jaipur vide its order dated 13.08.2008 allowed the complaint with direction to the opposite party/Cargo Carrier to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of the order, a sum of
Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and a sum of
Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the Cargo Carrier filed appeal No. 2007 of 2008 before the State Commission, but without success, the appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission vide an order dated 31.10.2011, hence this petition.
2. We have heard Mr. S.K. Jha, counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He would assail the findings and orders passed by the Forabelow mainly on the ground that the same are not based on the correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence and material produced on record. In this connection, he invited reference to certain documentary evidence brought on record. He submitted that no cogent evidence was led on record to establish that the articles handed over to the petitioner were in fact damaged or in any case to show that their value was Rs. 40,000/-. In this connection, we may refer to a letter /certificate issued by TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing dated 05.12.1997, which has been issued by a certain MahteshBassapa Gudi, who appears to be working as the agent of the petitioner for the purpose of delivery of the various consignments received by the petitioner for carriage and delivery. In this certificate, the above named Bassapa Gudi had certified as under:
“I, Mahtesh Bassapa Gudi, aged 18 years, state that I, today, dated 05.12.1997, came to deliver three packets. Packet bearing No. T/R No.AW70449 dated 05.012.1997 in the name of Hiteshi Ishrani. These packets were open in my presence. I observed that all Goods were broken, which includes One Dinner Set, some Glasses, One Microwave and other Kitchen Crockery broken, the Goods which were received by GatiCargo at Jaipur and in Mumbai, I have come to deliver the same on behalf of Gati Cargo. These Goods broken on the way from Jaipur to Mumbai. Value of these broken Goods are approx.. Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only).
Along with me, Ratan Kamble came to deliver these goods. Broken Goods, Crockery etc., returned to me by Hiteshi Ishrani.”
3. Counsel would assail the said certificate on the ground that it has not been signed by anyone on behalf of the petitioner and the responsibility of the petitioner cannot be fixed on the basis of the said certificate. We have noted down this submission only to be rejected because from the material placed on record, it can be safely inferred that the TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing were engaged by the petitioner for the purpose of delivery of the consignment in question and therefore, the certificate issued by the representative of TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing cannot be disowned and questioned by the petitioner. TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing followed the matter with the petitioner by issuing a number of reminders but without any response from the petitioner.
4. It is also submitted that the damage to the goods might have been caused due to defective/improper packing and in any case, it was not declared by the consignor complainant that the packages contained fragile items like dinner set, coffee set, tea set, glassware and Microwave Oven etc. This submission too is liable to be rejected because these items find a clear mention in the list attached with the goods receipt issued by the petitioner. Thus, looked from any angle there is no escape from the conclusion that the damage to the aforesaid goods was caused after the goods were entrusted to the petitioner for carriage and delivery at the place of destination. The petitioner as a cargo carrier was obliged to take proper care and to ensure that no damage was caused to the consignment. The Fora below have therefore, rightly held the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service in that behalf. We have also no reason to differ from the concurrent findings and orders recorded by the Fora below. In the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 STPL (Web) 295 SC, The Supreme Court held as under:
“23. Also it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”
5. In the case in hand, we do not see that there is any jurisdictional error or any miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.
The Revision Petitioner is accordingly dismissed in liminie.
(R. C. JAIN, J.)