JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant / respondent which is a partnership firm sent a consignment, comprising five boxes, valued at Rs.2,97,000/-, through the petitioner. The goods were consigned to P.S. Freight and Forwards 5090/T 44303, opposite Vishal Hotel, Paharganj, New Delhi and a Consignment Note was issued to the complaint firm at the time of the booking the goods. Invoice of the goods was also delivered to the petitioner at the time of the delivery of the goods. The consignment however, did not reach its destination, which led to the complainant issuing a legal notice to the petitioner. The legal notice was relied by the petitioner, which alleged that there was fire by short-circuit in its godown and this being a natural calamity, it was not responsible for the loss. 2. The petitioner did not appear before the District Forum and therefore was proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation since there was a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 3. A perusal of the orders passed by the fora below would show that the notice of the consumer complaint was sent to the petitioner by registered post and since it was not received back unserved for more than thirty days, statutory presumption of service was drawn. The aforesaid presumption was a presumption of law which the petitioner could rebut by leading appropriate evidence. That however, could not be done since the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, as barred by limitation. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission would show that a copy of the order passed by the District Forum was sent to the petitioner by registered post. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that event he copy of the order was not received by the petitioner. It is strange and cannot be just a coincidence that firstly the notice of the consumer complaint sent by registered post was not received by the petitioner and then the copy of the order passed by the District Forum, again sent by Registered Post, was not received by it. On the other hand, the legal notice sent by the petitioner before filing the consumer complaint was duly served. The aforesaid circumstances clearly indicate that the plea taken by the petitioner in this regard is not bonafide and is only a lame excuse to get rid of an ex-parte order and to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. 5. On merits also, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the fora below. The reply to the legal notice would show that that the booking of the goods is not disputed by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the goods were not delivered at their destination. The goods allegedly got destroyed in a fire due to short circuit. The incident of fire by short circuit, in my view cannot be said to be a natural calamity or an act of God. A fire by short circuit happened only when there is some defect in wiring etc. Therefore, such a fire cannot be said to be a natural calamity or an act of God. Therefore, the petitioner seems to have no defence on merits of the case. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. |
