AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since both the aforesaid revision petitions arise out of the same order, we are disposing them by this common order.
The present revision petitions have been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 20.9.2016 in two first appeals No.1082/2008 and 1083/2008 filed by the petitioners against the order of the District Forum dated 8.7.2008 in CC/05/2008 and CC/06/2008 filed by respondent No.1. Vide the impugned order the appeals of the petitioners were dismissed.
The impugned order is challenged on the ground that it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to collect the consignment from the place of delivery which was the godown of the petitioner at Faridabad. It is submitted that since it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to collect the consignment, there was no deficiency on their part. It is submitted that finding of the Fora below on this count are therefore perverse and are not supported by any evidence.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1/complainant had booked two consignments of his articles. One consignment contained one barrel and screws and the second consignment contained only barrel. It is submitted that the petitioner had delivered the screws at the address of Jeet Enterprises but did not deliver the barrels booked in two consignments. It is submitted that the argument of the petitioner that the goods were to be collected from the godown of the petitioner are therefore contrary to the facts and circumstances of this case.
The brief facts of this case are that two barrels vide two consignments were booked. One consignment of the barrel also contained screws. The facts proved on record shows that the screws were delivered by the petitioner to M/s Jeet Enterprises who is respondent No.2 before us.
The jurisdiction of this Commission 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited. In the revision petition this Court is not empowered to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence and reach to its own conclusion. It is the duty of the petitioner to point out the perversity in the order or any miscarriage of justice done in the present case. There is a concurrent finding of facts to the effect that the complainant had booked his goods vide two consignments. One consignment contained one barrel and screws and the second consignment contained only barrel. Both the consignments were booked on the same day. The Fora below have also concluded on the basis of evidences led before it that the petitioner had delivered the screws to Jeet Enterprises.
The Fora below have also concluded that the petitioner had failed to lead any evidence to prove that it had informed the complainant about the collection of his articles from its godown. Our attention is drawn to a document to show the delivery of the article at ART Godown, Faridabad of the petitioner. This argument has already been rejected by the Fora below. If that be so that the articles were to be collected from the godown by the petitioner, no evidence had been led by the petitioner that after the articles reached at its godown, they sent any intimation to the complainant to collect the articles from their godown. Contra the evidence on record is that they had delivered the part of one consignment on the address of Jeet Enterprises, respondent No.2.
We find no merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The revision petition has no merit. Hence, dismissed.