NORTHERN INDIA AGENCIES vs CARGO MOVERS OF INDIA

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant sent 35 boxes of cloth to Calcutta through the Qargo Movers of India (Respondent No. 1). The Cargo Movers of India had a internal arrangement with the Calcutta Delhi Roadways (P) Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) and they used to hand over the goods booked by them, for carriage to the latter. They handed over the boxes in dispute to respondent No. 2 for carriage to Calcutta.

IT is further pleaded that the goods receipt was handed over by them to the complainant. The purchaser of the goods, namely Jagdamba Agencies, did not pay the price of the goods to the complainant. Consequently the complainant handed over the goods receipt to the Cargo Movers and requested them that the goods to be brought back to Delhi. However, it is alleged, they did not hand over the goods to them. It is further pleaded that later, the Cargo Movers of India gave them 2 drafts, one of Rs. 10,000/- and the other of Rs. 20,000/-. The balance amount of Rs. 2,70,749/-, it is alleged, was due from them to complainant.

The complaint has been contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that the complainant had authorized M/s. Jagdamba Agencies vide letter dated 6th March, 1992 to take delivery of the goods from the respondent. In view of that letter the goods were delivered to M/s Jagdamba Agencies.

THE only question that arises for determination is, whether the letter dated 6th march, 1992 by which the complainant authorized M/s Jagdamba Agencies to take delivery of the goods was written by them. The learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant did not write any such letter to M/s Jagdamba Agencies. We have given thoughtful consideration to the argument. The suit involving question as to whether a document is a forged one, should be filed in the Civil Court as the parties there have advantage of producing witnesses, issue interrogatories, examining hand writing experts reports, prove documents, cross examine witnesses etc. It is not possible for the Commission to adjudicate upon as such question in summary proceedings. It is however relevant to point out, that prima-facie the allegation of the complainant, that letter is forged, appears to be incorrect. In this regard reference may be made to the receipt dated 22nd May, 1992 given by them to M/s Cargo Movers of India respondent No. 1 at the time of receipt of Rs. 10,000/-. In the receipt they admitted that the draft of Rs. 10,000/- had been received by them from M/s Jagdamba Agencies, Calcutta, through Cargo Movers of India, Delhi Office.

AFTER taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we dismiss the complaint subject to the observation that the complainant may file a civil suit if so advised. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.