C. Viswanath ORDER
C. Viswanath, (Presiding Member)
1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 48/2016 dated 17.01.2019.
2. The Petitioner/Complainant stated in his Complaint that he handed over a carton 50 pcs of Gun metal bushes to Mr. Mathew Kurien of M/s. Samuelsons, Opposite Party No. 4 along with cash payment of Rs. 11,400/- for the services of door delivery of cargo by air to the buyer of the Petitioner, namely Aluworks Ltd. in Ghana. Opposite Party No. 4 handed over the cargo to Opposite Party No. 3, who in turn handed over the same to Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite No. 2 again handed over the cargo to the Respondent, vide airway bill dated 15.02.2012. It was further stated, vide letter dated 16.04.2012, that the Respondent sent the cargo to the airport but the carton was never delivered to the buyer of the Petitioner in Ghana. It was lost during Respondent's custody in the warehouse at the airport in Ghana. On 05.06.2012, the Petitioner submitted claim for US dollar 3000 to the Respondent, which was also acknowledged by Opposite Party No. 2, but no response was received, despite notices on 23.07.2012 and 07.08.2012. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
3. The notices were issued against the Respondent as well as Opposite Parties but the Respondent and Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 failed to turn up, despite service of notices. Hence, on 04.04.2013, they were proceeded ex-parte. Opposite No. 4 only contested the present Complaint and filed written statement. Opposite Party No. 4 contended that the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 3 were having a direct deal and Opposite Party No. 4 was not liable. It was contended by Opposite Party No. 4 that as per the instructions of the Petitioner, Opposite Party No. 4 had handed over the cargo to Opposite Party No. 3, vide receipt No. 008, dated 15.02.2012 in favour of the Petitioner. Opposite party No. 3 handed over the carton to Opposite Party No. 2 vide receipt No. A/L/COU-7362, dated 20/02/2012, who again handed over the cargo to the Respondent, vide Airway Bill No. 516292810870, dated 15/02/2012. It was the Respondent, who handled the cargo by Air.
4. District Forum, vide order dated 19.09.2015, partly allowed the Complaint on the ground that it was proved by the Petitioner, by an unrebutted and unchallenged affidavit in evidence, that the carton of gun metal bushes was handed by the Petitioner to Opposite Party No. 4, who handed it over to Opposite Party No. 3 who in turn handed it over to Opposite Party No. 2, who finally gave its custody to the Respondent, who sent it by air to Ghana for delivery to the party concerned at the destination. The said articles could not be delivered to the concerned party at Ghana, as the parcel containing the articles was stolen from the Respondent's warehouse in the airport in Ghana. Opposite Party No. 4, 3 and 2 were mere agents of the Respondent and passed on the articles of the Petitioner for delivery at Ghana. When the articles of the Petitioner were stolen, they were deemed to be in the custody of the Respondent, who despite the claim filed by the Petitioner, had not yet compensated the Petitioner and was therefore, guilty of deficiency in services provided to the Petitioner. The Respondent alone should compensate the Petitioner on account of deficiency in services. Opposite Party No. 4, 3 and 2 had done their duty of passing the parcel containing the articles of the Petitioner to the Respondent and were not liable for the non-delivery of the articles of the Petitioner at Ghana. Thus, the Respondent was directed to make the payment of Rs. 20,000/- including the cost of reimbursement of the value of the articles in question and mental agony and harassment suffered by the Petitioner for non-reimbursement of the amount of loss of articles, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum form the date of filing the complaint till realization of the amount. Litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed upon on the Respondent to be paid to the Complainant. In case this cost was not paid within a month of the receipt of the copy of the order by the Respondent, the same would be recoverable from the Respondent along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of the order till recovery of the said amount of costs.
5. Aggrieved by order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, vide order dated 17.01.2019, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner for enhancement of the amount and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
7. Heard the Petitioner in person. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
8. The Petitioner's claim from the opposite parties was to reimburse $3000 with interest, cost of litigation etc. The order passed by the District Forum clearly shows that the Respondent was the main culprit and other Opposite Parties were agents only. Opposite Party No. 2, 3 and 4 had sent the parcel containing the articles of the Petitioner to the Respondent. Articles of the Petitioner were stolen in the custody of the Respondent. Hence, Opposite Party No. 2, 3 and 4 were not liable for non-delivery of the articles of the Petitioner at Ghana. The District Forum did award compensation for loss of goods, but reduced it to Rs. 20,000/- only, apart from cost of litigation etc. The State Commission in its order stated that the Counsel for the Respondent explained that value of articles disclosed in Airfreight invoice, was US $ 250. The Petitioner did not protest when he noted cheque of value in the airfreight invoice. The value of US $ 250 came to Rs. 17,500/- at the current price of Rs. 70/- per dollar. District Forum had awarded Rs. 20,000/- in place of Rs. 17,500/-. It was more than the amount disclosed by the Petitioner. The Respondent remitted the amount awarded by the District Forum, vide cheque dated 16.06.2016 for Rs. 27,252/-, in favour of the Petitioner, which, however, was not accepted by the Petitioner and returned to the Respondent. This showed the bona fide of the Respondent. The Petitioner submitted that it was a case of forgery and cheating committed by OP No. 4 and the Respondent jointly. He submitted that he has been restraining himself from initiating criminal action against the OPs for the aforesaid offences. The State Commission rightly held that the Petitioner may take such steps as are available to him in law and that nothing prevented him from doing so and dismissed the appeal.
9. It is a settled proposition of law that under Section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission has limited jurisdiction. It is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidence led by the parties and then reach to its own conclusion on the facts of the case. The concurrent findings of the lower Fora can only be challenged on the ground of miscarriage of justice or if the order was against the existing law or perverse. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - MANU/SC/0409/2011 : (2011) 11 SCC 269 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."
10. Since in the present case, the Petitioner has only challenged the findings of Fora below on facts which are based on the evidences led before it, this Commission has no jurisdiction to re-ascertain and re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties and substitute its own finding. No miscarriage of justice or perversity has been brought to my notice. The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.