AFZ-DA LEATHER PRODUCTS vs BISMI LEATHERS

-BOTH these appeals arise out of the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras in O.P. No. 137 of 1991. The original petition before the State Commission was filed by Bismi Leathers (who is the respondent in First Appeal No. 94 of 1992 and appellant in the other appeal No. 211 of 1992) against the appellant in First Appeal No. 94 of 1992 (respondents in Appeal No. 211 of 1992) and against Tamil Nadu Leather Development Corporation Ltd. In this order reference will be made to the parties in Appeal No. 94 of 1992.

THE brief facts according to the complaint are that the complainant had supplied some pieces of leather for processing to the appellant. THE complainant''s case was that part of the leather pieces were not delivered after processing and the goods which were processed were processed improperly. THE complaint was contested by the appellant. State Commission allowed the complaint in part and ordered to the appellant to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 6,05,880/- as value of the pieces of leather alleged not to have been delivered with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint plus Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for pain and mental agony plus Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

Feeling aggrieved, the opposite party No. 1 who is the appellant in First Appeal No. 94 of 1992, has filed the appeal. The complainant has filed the other Appeal No. 211 of 1992 about the part of the order by which their claim was disallowed.

THE Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that no proper opportunity was given to his clients for producing oral as well as documentary evidence and the State Commission has only relied upon the delivery notes. He has gone to the extent of urging that the State Commission rejected the request made on behalf of the appellant to lead oral evidence. In the memorandum of appeal, it is further alleged that after the arguments were heard, the State Commission allowed the complainant to put in additional documents Ex. B-13 & B-14 and no opportunity was given to the opposite party to contradict the above documents nor copies of those documents were supplied to his clients. The respondent has filed a counter to the memorandum of appeal but has not specifically denied the allegations made by the appellant.

WE also find that the signatures of one Mr. Manohar on some delivery notes were disputed but the State Commission book upon itself the task of comparing those signatures with other admitted signatures. The parties were not given any chance to examine any Handwriting Experts to prove or disprove the authenticity of those disputed signatures. In the light of the above observations, we feel that the parties have been handicapped in proving their respective cases. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission. The State Commission shall give reasonable opportunity to both the parties to produce additional evidence which they might like to place before it and then decide the case afresh. Both these appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Appeals disposed of accordingly.