- (1.) THE complainant in O.P. No. 134/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srivilliputhur, is the appellant herein. Their case was as follows : (a) On 20.7.1999, they consigned 225 bags of coconut shell powder meant for preparing incense sticks of a total value of Rs. 40,716 in air -proof packing from Sivakasi to M/s. Goel Industries, Delhi. The freight charges of Rs. 23,100 were payable for transporting the consignment from Sivakasi to Delhi. The consignee found the consignment to have solidified and, therefore, refused to take delivery. The documents sent through the bank were returned. The complainant caused a notice to be issued on 6.3.2000 claiming damages which was responded to by the opposite parties denying their liability. The complaint in the above circumstances came to be filed for recovery of Rs. 50,000 being the loss allegedly sustained by the complainant, Rs. 2,500 being the cost of correspondence and Rs. 50,000 for mental agony in all Rs. 1,02,500.
(2.) THE case of the opposite parties was as follows : The consignment reached there in good condition on 20.7.1999. The consignee never went to the parcel office of the opposite parties to confirm the arrival or condition of the goods since the goods remained unclaimed. The Delhi Office of the opposite parties by letter dated 21.8.1999 informed the consignee and called upon them to take delivery of the consignments after paying the freight and other charges. A copy of the letter was also marked to the complainant. There was no response from either end. The opposite parties then wrote to the State Bank of India through whom the documents were negotiated on 23.9.1999 informing them that the consignee had failed to take delivery. Copy of this letter was also marked to the complainant. The bank informed the opposite parties that the documents had already been returned to the complainant since the consignee had not paid the money due for retiring the documents. The consignee was not willing to clear the documents for reasons unrelated to the undamaged condition of the goods. In these circumstances, there was no deficiency in service and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) BEFORE the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A7 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B18 were marked. The District Forum accepted the case of the opposite parties and by order dated 27.9.2001 dismissed the complaint. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.;