M/s Prakash Road Lines Ltd.                       .. Petitioner 
                  Vs
Shri R.S.Chandel                                       ... Respondent

BEFORE : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N.Kapoor, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member.

Dated: 22-03-2004

Per Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member :

     This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 9th December 2003 by the State Commission, Karnataka in Appeal No.491/03 dismissing the appeal filed by M/s Prakash Road Lines Ltd. who is a petitioner here. Brief facts of the case are:

     Shri R.S.Chandel the Original Complainant booked a consignment consisting of five trunks, two bags and a cycle at Chandigarh office of the Petitioner vide consignment Note No.1997460 dated 9.4.2001 for delivering the same at Bangalore. Although the consignment was delivered at Bangalore the Complainant found that the household goods were completely damaged. Although he addressed several letters and brought these facts to the notice of OP it was ignored and hence he filed the complaint with the District Forum, Bangalore. District Forum after going through all the materials placed before them held that the OP was deficient in service and allowed the complaint. District Forum directed OP to pay Rs.40000 with interest at 9% p.a. from 24-6-2001 till payment with cost of Rs.4000/-. This has been upheld by the State Commission.

     The Petitioners argument is that the Respondent/Complainant did not disclose the contents of the trunks and gunny bags nor did he give any value of the aforesaid articles or bills at the time of booking at Chandigarh. Although an advance of Rs.1500/- was paid against agreed amount of Rs.2500/- the balance of Rs.1000/- remains still unpaid. The second contention raised is that the Respondent fails to insure the goods and hence the consignment was carried at owners risk for which the petitioner cannot be made liable for the damages claimed. It is also argued that the Respondent first lodged a claim of Rs.40,000/- vide his letter dated 26-4-2001 wherein he did not claim damage of Rs.2000/- to the music system. But thereafter through advocate notice he claimed a sum of Rs.80,000/- without substantiating the same which shows that his motive was to make unlawful gains. After going through the records and hearing the arguments of the Petitioner we find there is no material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. It is consignment which arrived at Bangalore was opened in the presence of the agent of the Petitioner (OP) and it was noticed that the damage was caused to the television, sewing machine, crockery items, flask, iron, VCR and other items. Considering the complainant was shifting residence from Chandigarh to Bangalore, these were all his personal possession and although they are used, a claim for damages that was awarded Rs.40,000/- does not seem any exaggerated amount or a false claim. It is the responsibility of the Petitioner being a reputed transporter to take care and caution while transporting the goods. When Respondent brought to the notice of the Petitioner regarding the damages caused to his personal belongings, the Petitioner did not respond to the demand at that relevant time which amounts to deficiency in service. As far the claim of the enhanced damages, taking into consideration the market value of the damaged articles as on the date cannot be called that the Respondent has made a false claim. District Forum and State Commission have given correct reasoning and allowed only Rs.40,000/- which was the original claim. We do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission for us to interfere in our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act. Revision Petition is dismissed.