Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

V.P. Sharma Vs. Fedex - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (17 Jun 2019)

Concurrent findings of lower Fora can only be challenged on ground of miscarriage of justice or if order was against existing law or perverse



In facts of present case, the Petitioner/Complainant stated in his Complaint that, he handed over a carton 50 pcs of Gun metal bushes to 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. It was further stated, vide letter 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. 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. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

District Forum; vide order, partly allowed the Complaint. Not satisfied with order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner for enhancement of the amount and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.

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 16th June, 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.

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.

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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved