Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, President
This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Additional District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.276/2011 on 02/07/2012. By this order complaint has been allowed and the appellant/original opponent is directed to pay an amount of `1,00,000/- by way of compensation and `5000/- by way of costs of the complaint. These amounts were directed to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the appellant is directed to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the above amount.
In this complaint notice before admission was issued on 06/09/2012. Though the order passed by this Commission was not complied with, it appears that the notices were sent by speed post to the respondent and respondent is accordingly present before this Commission.
Heard Mr.Shailesh Gawande-Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person.
Appellant has raised a contention that the notice which was served by the District Forum has not been properly served. According to appellant, appellant was earlier residing in the said premises and now he has left the premises. Therefore, service is not proper. We asked whether there is any material to show that there is change of address at the relevant time. Ld.Advocate for the appellant was fair enough to state that there is no material on record of such change of address and, therefore, only inference follows is that the notice has been properly served and District Forum has proceeded in the matter. It was for the appellant to appear before the District Forum and participate in the proceeding. He himself has failed and therefore, District Forum has rightly proceeded ex-parte.
Appellant is admittedly a carrier and in appeal memo and synopsis though appellant has tried to deny the liability however, appellant has admitted that the car was damaged during the transit while loading on the carrier and same was informed to the complainant. This damage has been accepted by the carrier. In fact as per section 9 of the Carriers Act, responsibility to prove that there is no negligence on the part of carrier is on carrier and not on the complainant. There is presumption in favour of the complainant and, therefore, what we find that even if we consider the case on merit, there is no substance in the appeal. Appeal is hereby rejected. In fact when the damage to the goods are accepted, the appellant should not have preferred the appeal but by preferring this appeal, complainant has been further pulled in the litigation and, therefore, while rejecting appeal, we impose further costs of `5000/-. These costs should be paid in addition to costs granted by the District Forum.
ORDER
Appeal is rejected with costs of `5000/- payable to the respondent.
Pronounced on 5th November, 2012.
