AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition was dismissed by an order dated 30.4.2012 for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are discussed below:
THE respondent was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (in short, ''the District Forum ''). He filed the complaint in his capacity as Manager of M/s. Sabu Minerals which had consigned some goods (300 bags of cement) to M/s. Bharati Cement Stores, Ajnala, Amritsar, by entrusting the goods for transportation and delivery to the opposite party (OP) - petitioner before us. The complainant alleged that the OP failed to deliver the goods to the consignee at the destination. Despite service of letter sent by registered post on 18.4.1996, the OP did not reply nor did it return the goods to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant prayed for award of Rs. 62,750 on various counts. The OP resisted the complaint by averring that the consignment of 300 bags of cement that was accepted for carriage by road under GR No. 3923, was actually delivered to the consignee on 18.1.1995. The receipt was also furnished to the consignor (M/s. Sabu Minerals). Moreover, in accordance with the conditions of the contract for carriage (printed on the goods receipt - GR), the complainant should have served a notice within one month of 13.1.1995 (the date the goods were handed over to the carrier) if the goods failed to reach the consignee at the destination. However, the first notice sent by the complainant was dated 18.4.1996. Thus, the OP was not liable to make good the alleged loss to the consignor in view of the inordinate delay.
ON appraisal of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record, the District Forum partially allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay to the complainant Rs. 24,600 (cost of 300 bags of cement) along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 13.1.1995 and Rs. 500 as cost, within 30 days of the date of the order.
AGGRIEVED , the petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission ''). This appeal was dismissed by the State Commission for non-prosecution by its order dated 10.4.2008. Thereafter, an application for restoration of the appeal was filed by the petitioner on 21.1.2009. By its order dated 5.4.2010, the State Commission allowed the application, restored the appeal (No. 2215 of 1997) to its original position and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits without issuing any notice to the respondent/complainant. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant filed an application against the order dated 5.4.2010 protesting against State Commission ''s disposal of the restored appeal of the petitioner on merits. By its order dated 16.11.2010, the State Commission allowed the application of the respondent/complainant and recalled its order dated 5.4.2010 insofar as it related to the merits of the petitioner ''s appeal. It is against this order that the petitioner/OP has filed this revision petition.
WE have heard Mr. D. M. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner/OP and Mr. Sanjay Shangari, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant and have gone through the records of the case carefully.
BY its judgment dated 19.8.2011 in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another, IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC)=VII (2011) SLT 404=(2001) 9 SCC 541, the Apex Court has ruled that it is only the National Commission which has the power to review/recall/set aside its own order in accordance with the provisions of Sections 22(2) and 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ''the Act ''). Neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has any such power in the absence of specific provisions in the Act to either recall/set aside an ex parte order or to review any other order passed by it. In this view of the legal position, it is obvious that the very first order passed by the State Commission allowing restoration of the appeal of the petitioner was totally illegal and without any jurisdiction. Therefore, all the subsequent proceedings before the State Commission and the orders passed therein are also without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed/set aside. Consequently, the order dated 5.4.2010 restoring the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.8.1997 of the District Forum is set aside.
IN view of the foregoing reasons, this revision petition was dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.