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

          The complainant, who is carrying business under the name and style of Navin Bharat Bastralaya booked a consignment containing embroidered silk suits with dupattas, with Anjani Courier Services Pvt. Ltd., on 15.10.2016, paying a sum of Rs.495/- as charges.  The consignment was to be delivered to Suba Alam in Thakurganj, Lucknow.  The consignment however, was not delivered.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking the value of the goods which was stated to be Rs.1,10,000/-, along with interest etc.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, which claimed that it was only a franchisee of  Anjani Courier Services Pvt. Ltd.  On merits, it was not disputed that the consignment was delivered to the petitioner and did not reach its destination.  It was also stated in the written version that the complainant had not disclosed the particulars of the goods sent in the consignment to the petitioner.

3.      The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint and having directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 7% per annum and litigation cost quantified at Rs.5,000/-, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

4.      The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being only a franchisee of the courier, cannot be held liable for the loss of the goods.  It is not in dispute that Anjani Courier Services Pvt. Ltd., is the company engaged in providing courier services. The consumer complaint was instituted only against the company.  It was allowed by the fora below only against the company and not its franchisee.  Therefore, the amount awarded by the fora below is recoverable only from the company namely Anjani Courier Services Pvt. Ltd.  I therefore, find no merit in the preliminary submission.

5.      It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the invoice produced by the complainant before the District Forum to prove the purchase of the goods from R.A. Embroidery) was a fictitious document since the letters sent by the petitioner to the aforesaid entity were received back undelivered.  However, no evidence has been produced to prove that the above referred entity did not function at the address given on the invoice filed by the complainant.  Therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove that the said invoice was a forged and fictitious document.

6.      A concurrent finding of the fact has been returned by both the fora below.  The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless it is shown to be perverse in the sense that no reasonable person, acting on the basis of the material available to the fora below, could have returned such a finding.  Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the evidence produced by the complainant in the form of invoice issued by R.A. Embroidery, the said finding cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.