At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI
For the Petitioners: B. Bharti, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.
B.K. Taimni, Member:
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission against the order of District Forum awarding Rs. 25,155/- as relief and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in favour of respondent/complainant.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner Packers and Carriers were handed over 40 packages by the respondent/complainant to be transferred from Secundrabad to Gandhidham. The lorry carrying these goods met with an accident en route and from the place of accident it had to be carried in another vehicle. Complainant received some of the packages in damaged condition for which he claimed damages from the petitioner.
3. On not getting satisfactory reply, complainant moved the District Forum who after hearing both the parties rejected the contentions of the petitioner awarded the relief already mentioned above against which the petitioner filed an appeal with some delay. The appellant authority-State Commission dismissed the appeal as being time-barred as well as on merits.
4. Before us the revision petitioner argued on facts namely that goods were delivered intact, complainant took 27 days to bring the discrepancy of damage to goods to the notice of the petitioner, District Forum and State Commission have not taken into consideration the depreciated value of the goods, that goods were packed by the complainant and were kept in the garage for two months implying that goods could have been damaged during this period of storage. He has charged only Rs. 8,600/- as cost of transportation and to penalize him for more shall harm him. All these questions of fact have been gone into by the lower Fora. No question of law has been raised before use showing that there is any illegality or irregularity in the order passed b
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
y the State Commission. We find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. No order on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.