PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioners heard.  On 12.11.2004, a consignment of 200 sarees packed in three packets were sent by the complainant Mysore Silk International Ltd., through the Carrier DTDC

Worldwide Express Ltd. –the OP.  The same were to be delivered at Delhi because the complainant wanted to show the same at the exhibition at Pragati Maidan, Delhi, which was to start from 13.11.2004.  The complainant specifically instructed the Carrier to deliver the consignment by Air.  The first deficiency on the part of the OP is apparent from the fact that the consignment was sent through Indian Railways through some special messenger.  However, out of the above said three packets, one packet was received and two were found missing, which contained 145 sarees, valued at Rs. 3,10,955/- .  The same were not delivered to the complainant.  The complainant also handed over the delivery Challan specifying the value of each saree packed in each packet.  The cost of 200 sarees was   Rs. 4,37,205/-.  Consequently, the present complaint was filed before the District Forum.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the services of Carrier were meant for commercial purposes.

2.      The complainant filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission decided the case in the favour of the complainant against the OPs.  The Opposite Parties were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,10,955/- to the appellant/complainant Mysore Silk International Limited alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. w.e.f. 13.11.2004 till its realization.  The costs of Rs. 10,000/- were also imposed on the OP. 

3.      Aggrieved by that order, the instant revision petition has been filed.  First submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that this transaction was for commercial purposes.  Even though, the State Commission has cited the Apex Court’s authority reported in the case of “Nath Brothers Exim International  V/s. Best Roadways, (2000) 4 SCC 553”.  In view of that authority, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner must be eschewed out of consideration. 

4.      Second argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that this service has been equated with the service of the Insurance Company. This question has been replied by the State Commission.  It is observed that services hired are not for commercial purposes and it has referred to the judgment of this Commission in the case of “Harsolia Motors V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., I(2005) CPJ 27 (NC)”.  These arguments rather go against the petitioner.

 5.      We see no merit in the revision petition. No other argument was heard.  The revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which will be paid to the respondent, within 90 days.