1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above against the order dated 15.09.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 964 of 2019 in which order dated 09.05.2014 of Jaipur IV District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.  814 of 2015 ( old case no. 834 of 2014) was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 15.09.2020 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant in the said FA No. 964 of 2019 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC no.814 of 2015 ( Old case No. 834 of 2014).

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 04.02.2021.  Petitioner filed brief notes of arguments on 09.11.2022.  On account of absence despite service, Respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 30.03.2021.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant through the OP booked its goods for delivery and gave all amount in advance in which truck fare, unloading and door delivery were included.  The goods were being sent to Chennai, Kochi, Vishakhapatnam, Ramgarh from Ghaziabad/Mandoli/UP border.  It is the case of the complainant that OP sent the goods of the Complainant marked at Sl.No.1 to Chennai but goods sent by the complainant through OP marked at Sl. No. 2 and 3 to Khidki and Ramgarh were returned back to the him.  The goods to be delivered at Kochi marked at Sl. No.4, amounting to Rs.1,76,400/- and fare charges Rs.16116/-  which contained bottles of Roohafza, two bilties of Sl. No. 5,  one amounting to Rs.5040/-, the goods were damaged and in second bilty amounting to Rs.4410/-, the goods were less.  Further, it is the case of the  Complainant that OP had assured him that after delivering the goods, the delivery receipt would be mentioned on the bilty / bills and the same will be provided to him but after many efforts through e-mail and personally, the OP neither gave any satisfactory reply nor gave the proof of delivery (POD) due to which the Complainant faced the loss amounting to Rs.5,20,545/- as loss of goods and loss of carriage charges.  The Complainant sent legal notice to the OP but no satisfactory reply was  given by the OP.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 09.05.2014 dismissed the Complaint of the Complainant.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated  15.09.2020 allowed the  Appeal of the Complainant.  Therefore, the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 15.09.2020 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. State Commission has allowed a claim which was not supported by the documentary evidence and, therefore, allowing a Complaint without any proof is against law.

2. When the respondent has not filed any proof of the amount claimed by him in the Complaint, the Complaint ought to have been dismissed by the State Commission.

3. State Commission has failed to appreciate that there was no such loss suffered by the respondents.

6.       The counsel for the Petitioner was heard. The respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 30.03.2021.  Accordingly, the case is being decided on merits on the basis of the revision petition, written submissions filed by the Petitioner and other case records.

7.       Counsel for the petitioner apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5, argued that respondents have even failed to endorse any handwritten remark on Proof of Delivery ( POD) regarding receipt of consignment in damaged or short condition.  It is further argued that PODs alongwith invoices were handed over by the Petitioner to the respondent after delivery of each consignment. 

8.       We have carefully gone through orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records.  In the Complaint, Complainant has given following details of goods dispatched through OP.  

On perusal of the complaint, we find that complainant has mentioned that goods at Sl. No.1 had reached the place of destination, goods at Sl. No.2 and 3 sent to Khidki and Ramgarh were returned back to the him.  Complainant has not specified in his complaint as to what happened to the goods mentioned at Sl. No.4 in which  there were bottles of Roohafzah, whether the same were delivered, damaged or returned back.  As regards, Sl. No.5, it is stated by the complainant that some goods were less and some were damaged. It thus can be inferred that complainant has no dispute with the OP regarding transportation of goods mentioned at Sl. No.1, 2 and 3.   The Complainant has not disclosed as to what is the dispute with OP regarding goods marked at Sl. No.4.  The complainant has only stated that two bilties marked at Sl. No.5, the goods amounting to Rs.5040/- were damaged and in other biliti, goods worth Rs. 4410/- were less but did not disclose as to whether the goods reached its destination or not.

9.       District Forum also in its order has observed that Complainant is stating the financial loss of Rs.5,20,545/- on the basis of incomplete pleadings.  Extract of relevant paras of the District Forum is reproduced below :

“7.       That in the present case the complainant has mentioned in the paragraph no.3  of the complaint that the goods of Sl.No.1 had been reached on the place and the goods of serial no.2 and 3 had been returned back to the Complainant-Firm,  value of goods at Sl. No.4 was Rs.1,76,400 in which there were bundles of Roohafza but complainant has not made it clear as to what had happened with the said goods and the goods at Sl. No.5 through bilty no. 37983 and 37984, the complainant stated that the goods amounting to Rs.5040/-and Rs.4410/- were less.  It therefore gives an impression that complainant had no problem / dispute with the OP regarding transportation of Sl. No.1,2 and 3 and the goods which has been mentioned in Sl. No.4, which has been given by the complainant firm through the OP and in which it has been stated that there were bundles of  Roohafza, but what is the dispute in relation to this, the complainant firm has not specified the same and only disclosed that in Sl. No.5, the goods of two bilties in Sl. No.5 amount to Rs.5040 and 4410/- were less but the complainant firm has not disclosed that the said goods had reached the destination or not.

9.         For clarification of this, if we observe paragraph no.5 of the complaint of the Complainant Firm, in this paragraph the complainant Firm has tried to disclose that in the said table in Sl. No.2 and 3, there were goods of bundles of Safi amounting to Rs.2,81,155/- and fare of goods amounting to Rs.28,734/- had been paid,  and from which it is not clear that in  Sl. No.4 of the said table, the Roohafza of Rs.1,76,400/- had been sent and whether it had been received or not.  Like this, in paragraph no.3 of the complaint, the  Complainant firm has stated that goods at Sl.No.2 and 3  have  been received back and in relation to this, the complainant firm stated in paragraph no.5 that there was a safi amounting to Rs.2,81,155/- but what happened with it, the complainant has not disclosed anywhere.  In Paragraph no.5, the complainant stated the fare of Sl. No.2 and 3 as Rs.13,684/-, and in addition fare of Rs.15,050/-is also shown but has not given any ground as to why said fare has been paid and in continuation of this, fare at Sl. No.5  has been stated as Rs.4845/-.  The Complainant firm stated the fare of Rs.8690/- and claiming it and in Sl.No.5, the complainant stated the said damaged goods, value of which has been stated at Rs.5040/- + Rs.4410/-, total amounting to Rs.9450/-.  Therefore, clarification which comes is that in Sl. No.4, the complainant has sent the Roohafza of Rs.1,76,400/- which was not delivered and in Sl. No.2 and 3 of the table, the complainant had sent the bundles of Safi which were not delivered at the place of destination, whose cost was Rs.2,81,155/ and fare was Rs.28,734/-, which were claimed from the OP.  Whereas, the Complainant firm has mentioned in paragraph no.3 that the goods at Sl. No.2 and 3 had been received back and has not stated about damage to the goods.  Like this, the goods sent / delivered mentioned at Sl. No.5 amounting to Rs.5040 /- and 4410/-, totaling Rs.9450/-, has been stated to be in damaged condition.  On the basis of half and incomplete pleadings, the Complainant firm is stating the financial loss of Rs.5,20,545/-“

10.     We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission and are of the considered view that State Commission, without any basis has come to a finding of loss of Rs.1,85,000/-.  In this regard, extract of relevant para of State Commission is reproduced below :

“That the Complainant / appellant firm delivered the goods to the five places, and in which the goods of serial no.1 delivered to the Chennai and which reached the destination, the goods of serial no.2 and 3 have been returned back,  goods of Sl. No.4 in which there were Roohafja drink and the amount of Rs.16,116/- paid through mode of bilty and the cost of the goods was Rs.1,76,400/- which has not been delivered and there were two bilties in serial no.5 and in which one bilty the goods of amount of Rs.5040/- was in damaged condition and in another bilty the goods amounting to Rs.4410/- were less and like this the petitioner / complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,85,400/- ( Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred only) and which has been due to the damage and loss of goods.”

11.     The above findings of State Commission with respect to non-delivery of goods under Sr. no.4 costing Rs.1,76,400/- are not even in accordance with the pleadings in the Complaint, which have been elaborated in para 8 above.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is material irregularity in the order of the State Commission, and the same cannot be sustained.  Accordingly, the order of State Commission is set aside, order of District Forum is upheld.  Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. 

12.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.