Appeared at the time of arguments For the Petitioner : Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate Pronounced on: 16th June 2023 ORDER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR 1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the ‘Act’), challenging the Order dated 09.04.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in F.A. No. 207 of 2013, whereby the State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal before it, upheld the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in CC No. 357 of 2010. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner - Complainant and the Transport Agency (OP) and have perused the record including inter alia the memo of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a Video Camera of Sony Company, valuing Rs.1,40,000/-, was booked by the Complainant with the OP for its transport from Nagpur to Raipur, in the form of a parcel. The requisite charges were paid by the Complainant to the OP for the transportation. The allegation of the Complainant was that the said parcel was not delivered at its destination and thus, deficiency in service was committed by the OP, therefore, Complainant is entitled to get value of the article, along with compensation. 4. The OP filed the written statement and denied the allegations levelled against it. 5. The District Forum, after hearing both the sides, vide its Order dated 23.02.2013, dismissed the Complaint, holding that: “In the case the booking charge in the booking receipt is mentioned Rs. 60/- in receipt the product inside the packet was
not mentioned nor the price was mentioned before admitting the
claim of the complainant firstly the forum should be confirmed
about the fact that the said camera was packed in the packet by
Anil Kumar and it was the video camera of Sony Company Only.
For proving this fact that in the packet video camera of Sony
Company was inside Anil Kumar has not completed his
responsibility. It was not mentioned in the packet that inside the
packet the amount of video camera was mentioned. Here it is
important that if Anil Kumar have booked the vide camera then
he should have given the instruction that there is a video camera
inside the packet and Anil Kumar even after the instruction has
not given the detail. The packet which was booked and that in the
said packet there was the video camera the complainant has not
file any document/bill from which forum could have considered
that whether the Sony camera was with Anil Kumar or it was of
the ownership of the complainant. The person who has booked
the camera has not come before which also creates doubts that in the packet there was a video camera. The complainant should
have filed the affidavit of Anil Kumar for proving that he has
booked the video camera. Therefore from the question receipt it is not proved that the OP has booked the video camera. The
complainant has lodged the report after that video camera has
been lost. On the basis of the video camera it cannot be deemed
that Anil Kumar has booked the video camera until the purchased
receipt has not been filed. The OP in his W.S. has denied the and
this fact has also not been opposed by the complainant and in the
view of this the price of video camera cannot be decided. The OP
has filed the citations that they are responsible for the booking
amount but booking amount has been deposited by the
complainant there is no proof therefore the booking amount is
also not refundable and regarding this no order can be passed.
The considerable question in the case that the Anil Kumar should have come as an complainant or Mohammad Yusuf Raja
complainant is the consumer? as per the terms and conditions of
the booking receipt the OP has not committed any illegality or
negligence and the lost is out of control of the company by
therefore on the basis of above observation deficiency in service
is not proved against the OP. therefore the complaint of the
complainant is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case all the
parties will bear their own cost. 6. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, after hearing both sides, vide its Order dated 09.04.2014, dismissed the Appeal inter alia holding that: “14. In the instant case, the appellant/complainant filed document- 1 and respondent/ O.P. also filed document 1 i.e., booking receipt. In both the documents the name of the sender is mentioned as Anil
Nagpur and the name of the consignee is mentioned as Alfa collection. Looking to the aforesaid documents, it is not established that Anil
Kumar had booked the goods through the respondent/O.P. In the said
documents, the name of sender is mentioned as Anil Kumar and name
of the consignee is mentioned as Alfa Collection. Looking to the
documents, it is not established that the said goods was booked for the
appellant/complainant. Had the said goods was booked for the
respondent/complainant, then the sender Anil Kumar singed the
booking receipt. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the booking
receipts are binding on the appellant/complainant also. In the
booking receipt document-1, the value of the parcel/goods was not
pre-declared at the time of booking and in the said receipt the value of
parcel was not mentioned. The appellant/complainant himself signed
the receipt (document - 1), therefore, the terms and conditions
mentioned in the back side of the booking receipt are binding on the
appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant did not file any
document, which indicates or establish that the appellant/complainant
booked Video Camera valuing Rs.1,40,000/-. According to the
appellant/complainant, one Anil Kumar of Nagpur sent Video
Camera to the appellant/complainant from Nagpur. It appears that
the Video Camera was booked by Anil Kumar and booking charges
was paid by Anil Kumar. If the video camera was booked by Anil
Kumar, then Anil Kumar, is consumer of the respondent/O.P. and the
appellant/complainant is not consumer of the respondent/company. Document 1 which is photocopy of booking receipt in which the name
of sender is mentioned as Anil Nagpur and the name of consignee is
mentioned as Alfa Collection. The name of the consignee as
mentioned in the said document is Alfa Collection, but the
appellant/complainant did not file any evidence that he is the
proprietor of Alfa Collection. Therefore, the complainant has not been
able to prove that the said goods was booked by Anil Kumar for the
appellant/complainant. 15. According to the document - 1, the name of sender is Anil
Kumar of Nagpur and the name of the consignee mentioned is Alfa
Collection and therefore, Anil Kumar, who is sender is material
witness for the appellant/complainant, but the appellant/complainant
did not file affidavit of Anil Kumar. The appellant/complainant also
did not file any document which indicates that the send Anil Kumar
Booked video camera in the said parcel. Therefore, the
appellant/complainant has not been able to prove that actually Anil
Kumar booked the video camera for the appellant/complainant from
Nagpur through respondent/O.P. valuing Rs.1,40,000/-. 16. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the
District Forum. We find that the District Forum has rightly reached to
the conclusion that the appellant/complainant has not been able to prove that Anil Kumar booked video camera from Nagpur for the
appellant/complainant and the District Forum has also reached to the
conclusion that there is no evidence that the appellant/complainant
has paid any booking charges to the respondent/O.P. Therefore, the
appellant/complainant Mohd. Yusuf Raza, is not consumer of the
respondent/O.P. and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the
respondent/O.P. 17. In our view, the finding recorded by the District Forum is just
and proper and the impugned order does not suffer from any
irregularity or illegality and does not call for any interference by this
Commission.
18. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant being
devoid of any merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the material on record inter alia the Orders of both the fora below. 9. The State Commission’s Order dated 09.04.2014 is well-apprised and well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not found. 10. There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. 11. The Revision Petition, being patently ill-conceived and totally bereft of merit, is dismissed. 12. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to both the parties and to their respective Counsel. | 
