HARPREET HANDLOOM INDUSTRIES Vs. NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO & ANR
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2006-10-5
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 17,2006

Harpreet Handloom Industries Appellant
VERSUS
Nagpur Golden Transport Co And Anr Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ARVIND MILLS LTD. V. ASSOCIATED ROADWAYS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 11.2.2000 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which the complaint of appellant was dismissed.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant firm sent handloom goods from Panipat to Bilaspur (M.P) vide G.R. No. 344180 dated 9.4.1996 worth Rs. 6,200 bearing bill No. 472 dated 9.4.1996, another G.R. No. 334190 dated 10.4.1996, goods worth Rs. 52085 of bill No. 474 dated 10.4.1996, further vide GR No. 354506 dated 12.4.1996 goods worth Rs. 23400 of bill No. 476 dated 12.4.1996. The total value of goods was Rs. 1,37,485. The said goods were handed over to respondent No. 2 which was agent of respondent No. 1 and were to be delivered to M/s. Roop Chand Sidhu Lal Jain, a cloth merchant of Pendra, District Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh on payment of freight charges to the tune of Rs. 512, Rs. 370 and Rs. 214 respectively. However, goods did not reach its destination and the consignee approached respondents several times to deliver the goods but in vain.
(3.)ALLEGING deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.
Initially respondent No. 1 had appeared and filed written reply. It controverted the allegations of the appellant and stated that it was working as common carriers and as per provisions of Carriers Act no notice under Section 10 was given, so, complaint was not maintainable. It next stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It further denied other allegations and stated that no consignment was sent through it from Panipat to Bilaspur,so, it prayed that the complaint should be dismissed. However, thereafter it did not appear, so, it was proceeded against ex parte on 3.9.1997. Respondent No. 2 also appeared through Sh. Ramesh Kumar but did not file reply and thereafter did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte on 3.6.1997.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.