HINDUSTAN MOTORS vs KHETAN GOODS TRANSPORT

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 8.11.2001 in Complaint No. 206/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short), dismissing the appellant''s complaint.

THE appellant averred that he had handed over motor parts worth Rs. 9,856/- on 22.5.2000 to the respondent, for transportation from Raipur to Bilaspur to be delivered to consignee Ajit Auto Parts. THE goods as above, however, were not delivered. Hence the complaint for the recovery of the value of the said articles. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/respondent. It was averred that the complainant did not pay him any consideration for transportation of the above articles. It was accepted by the respondent on account of cordial relations between the parties. It was averred by the respondent that the articles as above were handed over to the consignee Ajit Auto Parts on 25.5.2000. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

The learned District Forum upheld the contentions of the respondent/opposite party as above and held that no consideration was paid by the complainant to the respondent towards the freight charges and that the goods were transported within charging any consideration from the complainant, hence the relationship of consumer and service provider did not exist between the parties. It was further held that the goods were delivered to the consignee Ajit Auto Parts, through the younger brother of the proprietor Ajit.

AFTER hearing the Counsel and perusal of the record, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The receipt produced by the complainant in complaint shows that no freight was charged for the transportation of the goods. This supports the respondent''s averments. In support of above averments an affidavit was also filed by the respondent stating that the goods were accepted for transportation due to good relations between the parties, without any consideration. The averments and affidavit of respondent appear to be substantiated by the said receipt. Thus, the relationship of consumer and service provider has not been established by the complainant. It may also be noticed that the respondent has averred that the goods were delivered to the younger brother of the proprietor Ajit. The proprietor of the respondent has sworn an affidavit in that regard. The complainant has failed to place any material on record that the goods were not handed over to the consignee. No letter reporting non-delivery or an affidavit by the consignee was produced. In view of the above, it appears that the complainant has not placed any material to substantiate his averments regarding handing over the goods for transportation on consideration and also regarding non-delivery of the said goods to the consignee. The complainant, therefore, obviously could not succeed. The complaint, therefore, was rightly dismissed by the District Forum.

ACCORDINGLY, as this appeal has no substance, it is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed with the liberty to the complainant/appellant to avail of such other legal remedy, as may be available to him. Appeal dismissed.