Case nº Respondents Revision Petition No. 3052 of 2010 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, March 12, 2014 (case Shanker Golden Transport Company Vs Ambika Sales)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Mohan Mathur, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Reepak Kansal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 |
| President | K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | March 12, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)
-
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 3.6.2010, passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1160/2009, Ambika Sales, Jaipur v. M/s. Shanker Golden Transport Company, vide which, while allowing the appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No. 1 booked goods with opposite party No. 1/petitioner on 28.9.2005 through Builty No. 404730 and on 1.10.2005 through Builty No. 405962. Both these Builties were of self and goods of both these Builties was to be delivered only after getting payment of Rs. 91,294 from opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2. Opposite party-No. 1 delivered goods to opposite party No. 2 without endorsement by the complainant and without receiving payment of Rs. 91,294. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party No. 1 contested complaint and submitted that as per oral instructions of complainant, goods were handed over to opposite party No. 2. Complainant does not want to recover money from opposite party No. 2 and has filed complaint in collusion. It was, further, submitted that after delivery of goods, for six months, complainant did not contacted to the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Complainant deleted opposite party No. 2 on 14.2.2007. The District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.
-
After admission, respondent No. 2 was not served, as he stood deleted by the complainant.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that goods of self Builty were delivered by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 as per instructions of the complainant and the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint even then, the State Commission committed error in allowing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.
-
It is admitted case of the parties that complainant transported goods vide two self Builties through opposite...
To continue reading
Request your trial