Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2015 in Appeal No.653 of 2014, passed by the State Commission.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant used the services of courier company to send certain articles in three parcels to be delivered to Ashika Fashion Wear, Mumbai.  However, the parcels never reached the destination and therefore a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.  District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,23,975/- alongwith 9% p.a. interest and further imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- and granted Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

          The opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 11.12.2015    reduced this amount to Rs.80,989/-.  Hence, the present revision petition.

          The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission has reduced the amount on the basis of some list which is stated to be supplied by the petitioner while booking the parcel, where all the goods are shown to total Rs.80,989/- only.  Learned counsel states that the opposite party has not filed the complete booklet and in its written statement there is a three page list whereas, in the annexure there is a five page list.  Thus, it is clear that the opposite party has tried to mislead the State Commission.  Hence, the order of the State Commission is not based on the correct facts and needs to be modified for enhancing the amount.

          I have considered all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.  It is seen that the order of the State Commission is based on a list which has been supplied by the petitioner and was available in the file of the State Commission and the items mentioned therein add up to Rs.80,989/-, therefore, the State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.80,989/- instead of Rs.3,23,975/-.  There is no rejoinder available on the file contradicting the averment made in the written statement.  Learned counsel has stated that he has no instructions in this regard and therefore he is not sure whether any rejoinder was filed or not.  Once a claim has been made and if it is not controverted by way of rejoinder or by way of evidence, it has to be taken to be correct.  Moreover, the State Commission has examined this issue and has found that the items in the list add up to only Rs.80,989/- and therefore the compensation of Rs.80,989/- has been allowed and therefore until some other document is filed or any other proof is submitted that the State Commission decided on wrong facts, order of the State Commission cannot be changed.  I do not find any other document available on the file which contradicts the documents on which the State Commission has passed its order. 

In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Consequently, the revision petition No. 750 of 2016 is dismissed at the admission stage.