R.K.Bawri, Member -- Heard Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party i.e. Om Carrying             Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the `Transporter'). None appears for the Respondent/Complainant Subedar Sukesan M.V. (hereinafter referred to as the `Complainant'). Also         perused the records of the learned District Forum Shillong (hereinafter referred to as the `Forum') in Complaint Petition No.16(S) of 1998 which were called for by this Commission and from which this instant Appeal arose.

 

2.         The Complainant's case before the learned Forum, in brief,        was that the Complainant who is a JCO serving in the Indian Army, in the course of his transfer from Jodhpur to Shillong engaged M/s Om Carrying Corporation, the Opposite Party/Appellant for transporting his household goods and           belongings packed in 23 packages a detailed list of which was prepared by the Complainant and handed over to the Transporter at Jodhpur along with the consignment. A consignment note GR No.3556743 dated 8.10.97 was accordingly       issued by the Transporter. The value of the goods was shown against each package in the said list by the Complainant, totaling Rs.1,69,000/- and an insurance premium of             Rs.1,020/- was also paid to the Transporter by him. When the consignment was delivered to the Complainant at Shillong by the Transporter, he found that while the contents of some of the boxes were intact, some others were either damaged or missing

 

3.         Broadly, the boxes with their contents and disclosed value         may be listed as follows for the purpose of this Appeal:

 

            (a)        Boxes containing                                               Rs.87,000.00

                        various household goods.

           

(b)        Box containing a motor bike                              Rs.42,000.00

           

(c)        Box containing one Onida Colour                      Rs.25,000.00

                        T.V. with booster, antenna, cable

                        and sockets.

           

(d)        Box containing a micro Oven,               Rs.15,000.00

                        two foreign blankets, clothings

                        and uniforms.                                                    ----------------

 

Total                            Rs.1,69,000.00

 

There was no complaint in respect of the boxes mentioned at para 2(a) above. The box containing the motor bike mentioned in paragraph 2(b) was found to be damaged but this was           subsequently repaired by the Transporter and as such the             Complainant, had no complaint in this regard. The complaint was with respect to the missing and damaged items in the        other boxes mentioned in paras 2(c) and 2(d) above. With        regard to the TV and its accessories valued at Rs.25,000/- [paragraph 2(c)] the Complainant stated that he found it in             a damaged and unserviceable condition and he, therefore,    deposited it back with the Transporter and a receipt dated 6.3.1998 was obtained by him.In respect of the micro oven, blankets, clothings and uniforms valued at Rs.15,000/-        [paragraph 2(d)], as per the Complainant, on delivery he found the box in which the items were packed to be totally broken and all the items missing.

 

4.         Before the learned Forum the Complainant thus claimed that the total financial loss caused by the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Transporter was Rs.40,000/- and prayed for compensation, interest and costs. On the other hand,in their show cause the Transporter prayed         for rejection of the claim as fictitious and frivolous and  for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of non-maintainability and concealment of material facts. Though the Complainant was himself examined and cross-examined, no  witness was led on behalf of the Transporter and the learned Forum heard and disposed the Complaint on the basis of the pleadings, written and oral, of both sides.

 

5.         The Onida Color T.V. was admittedly damaged in transit and was even got repaired by the Transporter. The only dispute between the parties in this respect was that while the Complainant claimed that despite the repairs the T.V. was no longer serviceable and he has therefore left it with Transporter, the Transporter claimed it to be in good service condition. In the facts of the case, the learned Forum held it to be right to compensate the Complainant for the T.V. and awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/- to the Complainant        against his claim of Rs.25,000/-. As regards the Micro Oven, two foreign blankets, clothings and uniforms said to be           missing by the Complainant which contention was contested by the Transporter, the learned Forum upheld the Complainant's           contention on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on            record and awarded a sum of Rs.9,500/- against the claim of          Rs.15,000/-. The learned Forum further directed the     Transporter to pay interest at 18% on the total awarded sum from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of    payment together with costs which were assessed at         Rs.3,000/-.

 

6.         In Appeal, the Transporter has challenged the order dated         13.2.2001 passed by the learned Forum on the following main  grounds:

 

(i)         That the impugned order was passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case while the Appellant had delivered the Consignment to the Complainant/Respondent to his full satisfaction and got the damaged goods repaired at the cost of the Appellant.

 

(ii)        That the learned District Forum had not taken into consideration that the Respondent failed to establish his Claim and the statement of the Respondent is contradictory            and there is no claim of the Respondent except the repairing of the Television which has been lying with the Appellant.

 

(iii)That the order passed by the Learned District Forum was not a speaking order on substantial point as the material on record had not been considered while giving the award.

 

(iv)That the Award had been made without any basis and the learned District Forum did not assess the circumstances             judiciously and is biased and hence liable to be set aside.

 

7.         During the course of hearing, however, the learned Counsel forthe Appellant could not satisfy us on the above grounds and show how the order passed by the learned Forum was not a speaking order; how the Award was without basis, injudicious or biased; how the Complainant failed to establish his claim and how the goods were delivered by the Transporter to the Complainants full satisfaction.

We have perused the copy of the Consignment Note No.3556743        dated 8.10.97 which was filed by the Transporter along with their Show Cause dated 31.10.98 before the learned Forum and       which itself reveals that the following remarks were made by the Complainant upon delivery of the goods:

 

 

(a)        Onida KY Series model 1995 with mike Colour T.V. (Deposited with the Company Office at G.S. Road, Shillong)

           

(b)        Wooden Box No.13 -Oven Grills and contents found missing and box in opened condition.

(c)        Motor Bike- Repairable condition. Sd/- Sub. Sukesan M.V. 4.3.98 "

 

On the face of this document itself, the Transporter cannot         contend that the `Appellant has delivered the Consignment to the Complainant/Respondent to his full satisfaction'.

 

8.         On the other hand, having carefully gone through the order         passed by the learned Forum and examined the documents on record, we find that the learned Forum has discussed the             entire case at length in its order which is a speaking order and has arrived at a judicious finding and fair conclusion based on the materials on record and the learned Forum's order suffers from no infirmity or illegality. The learned Forum also, rightly in our opinion, did not lose sight of the admitted fact that the Complainant had insured the goods through the Transporter and paid them a sum of Rs. 1020/= as insurance premium. We are also satisfied that the compensation awarded by the learned Forum for deficiency in             service on the part of the Transporter is quite fair and well-reasoned, as is the award of costs and interest. The Appeal appears to have been filed in a routine manner.

 

9.         In view of the above discussion, we find that the Appeal is         devoid of any merit and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the learned District Forum, Shillong in Complaint Petn. No.16(S) 98 and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

10.       In the result the Appeal is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.500/- to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent.