Petitioner, which was opposite party before the District Forum, has filed this Revision Petition against the order passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No.349/2000 dated 21.2.2006, by which the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal modifying the order passed by the District Forum.

          Shortly stated the facts are :

          Complainant/respondent booked two consignments with the petitioner for transportation from Delhi to Bhiwandi with instructions to deliver the same on presentation of the Lorry Receipts (hereinafter referred to as LRs for short). The receipts were in ‘self’ name. The value of the consignments was Rs.1,89,240/- and Rs.33,107.70. The LRs were lost and the respondent wrote to the petitioner on 27.11.1999, requesting the petitioner to issue duplicate LRs to enable the respondent to take delivery of the goods.  Since the goods were not delivered to the respondent, the respondent wrote another letter on 11.1.2000 requesting the petitioner to rebook the goods back to Delhi.  However, the petitioner failed to give the delivery at Delhi also.  Attributing misappropriation of goods, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

          In spite of due service, the petitioner did not put in appearance and contest the complaint.  District Forum, taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.2,22,347.70 being the value of the consignments along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. with effect from the date of entrustment of the consignment, i.e., 29.11.1999 till realization. Rs.1,000/- were awarded as costs. 

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission upheld the direction issued by the District Forum to refund the sum of Rs.2,22,347.70 but modified the order regarding interest. The State Commission substituted the interest and cost of litigation by compensation of Rs.15,000/-.

On perusal of the record, we find that the name of the consignee mentioned in the LRs was ‘self’. It is also not disputed before us that the petitioner had delivered the consignment to M/s Adhunik Synthetic Limited.  According to the petitioner, it had delivered the goods to Adhunik Synthetic Limited as Adhunik Synthetic Limited was the authorized dealer of the respondent.

We fail to understand as to on what basis the petitioner delivered the consignment to M/s Adhunik Synthetic Limited without any written instructions from the respondent. Respondent had not endorsed the LRs in the name of Adhunik Synthetic Ltd. requiring the petitioner to deliver the goods to Adhunik Synthetic Ltd. Merely because the bills of consignment were raised by M/s Adhunik Synthetic Limited did not authorize the petitioner to deliver the goods to M/s Adhunik Synthetic Limited directly when the consignment was in favour of ‘self’. Moreover, the petitioner, which was the opposite party, did not contest the complaint or appear in spite of service. The allegation made in the complaint remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Fora below have rightly held that the petitioner was deficient in service, as it had delivered the goods unauthorizedly to M/s Adhunik Synthetic Limited. It has repeatedly been held by this Commission that in case the complaint is not contested and the allegations made therein remain unrebutted, then the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, would be justified in taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct and admitted.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed.

Dismissal of the revision petition would not debar the petitioner to proceed against M/s Adhunik Synthetic Limited to recover the amount, if permissible under law.  The pleas taken by the petitioner now before us or the documents produced by it, which had not either been pleaded or taken before the District Forum, cannot be considered in the revision petition for the first time.