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

          No-one is present for the respondent / complainant despite service on 23.8.2018.  I have therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

-2-

2.      The complainant sent as many as six consignments of goods through the petitioner on different dates.  The case of the complainant is that the goods sent vide consignment No. 14341094 and 14676179 were short when delivered whereas the goods sent through consignment No. 15323899, 16407189, 16407190 and 16407192 were not delivered at all.  Being aggrieved from the short delivery of two consignments and non-delivery of the remaining four consignments, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation etc.

3.      The petitioner appeared before the District Forum on 06.7.2015 but did not file its reply even till 3.5.2016.  The District Forum therefore, closed the right of the petitioner to file its written version and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,98,895/- to the complainant, along with interest and compensation.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Since there was a delay of 103 days in filing the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed.  Vide impugned order dated 14.5.2018, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation as well as on merits.  Being

-3-

aggrieved the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      A perusal of the final order passed by the District Forum would show that despite having put an appearance through Shri Sanjiv Rohilla, Advocate on 6.7.2015, the petitioner filed only a Vakalatnama on 30.3.2016.  Reply / written version was not filed on that date. It was on 3.5.2016 that the District Forum closed the right of the petitioner to file its written version / reply.

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had filed an application before the District Forum for supply of deficient copies. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum would show that on 3.5.2016, an application was filed by the petitioner for supplying copies of the documents.  However, no copy of the said application has been filed, along with this revision petition.  It has not been explained why the application seeking supply of deficient copies was not filed between 6.7.2015, when the petitioner appeared through counsel for the first time and 3.5.2016 when the said application is stated to have been filed.  Almost ten months expired after 6.7.2015, before the said application is stated to have been filed.  The statutory time for filing the written version being only thirty days from the date of service of notice

-4-

upon the opposite party.  If any document was deficient in the set of documents supplied to the petitioner, the application seeking supply of such deficient copies ought to have been filed within thirty days of receipt of the notice.  That however, was not done, and no explanation has been given for not filing such an application for almost then months from the date on which the counsel had appeared before the District Forum.  In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner, when asked is not able to inform even as to on which date the notice of admission of the complaint was received by the petitioner from the District Forum.   Therefore, I see no justification for setting aside the impugned order only on account of the written version of the petitioner having not been considered by the District Forum. 

7.      I have perused the reply which the petitioners had filed before the District Forum on 3.5.2016 but was allegedly not considered by the District Forum.  I find no worthwhile defence in the reply filed by the petitioner before the District Forum.  No proof of having actually delivered all the consignments to the consignee was produced before the District Forum.  No acknowledgement of receipt of the consignment in full by the consignee was annexed to the said reply of the petitioner.  Therefore, on merit, the view taken by the District Forum and upheld by

-5-

the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

          The revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.  

          Later on Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the respondent has appeared and he has been apprised of the order so passed.