JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant booked a consignment of Indian Handicrafts with the respondent for carrying the same from India to Italy where the said goods were to be displayed in an Exhibition.  The complainant / petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- to the respondent for carrying the said goods from India to Italy.  The goods when delivered were found damaged.  The respondent instead of compensating the complainant / petitioner for the damage to the goods, demanded a sum of Rs.84,114.66 from her.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent which inter-alia stated in its reply that since packaging of goods was not their responsibility, they were not responsible for any break down, due to inadequate packaging.  It was further stated in the reply filed by the respondent that the complainant did not want to pay the outstanding dues of the respondent and that is why the entire story of damage to the goods have been fabricated by her.

3.      The District Forum having directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,834/-to the petitioner / complainant, both the parties preferred separate appeals before the concerned State Commission.  Vide impugned order dated 26.9.2018, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals, thereby maintaining the order passed by the District Forum.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4.      Admittedly, no evidence was led by the complainant to prove the value of the damaged goods.  Unless the value of the undamaged goods as well as the market value of the damaged goods is proved, it is not possible to work-out the loss suffered by the complainant on account of the alleged damage to the goods.

5.      The State Commission has also awarded compensation o the complainant / petitioner on the ground that since the weight of the consignment was only 401 kg. and maximum gross weight on which charges could be levied by the respondent was 447 kg, the respondent had charged an excess amount of Euro 1097 from the petitioner / complainant.   Since no cross petition has been filed by the respondent, I need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the said view.  However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, including that the petitioner / complainant had not let evidence to prove the market value of the damaged goods, no ground for interference with the order passed by the fora below is made out.  The revision petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.