Prem Parkash Goel and Ors. vs Green Carriers and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

THIS order shall decide two revision petitions detailed above. Both these revision petitions arise out of the same judgment.

FIRST of all we take RP/1809/2013. This revision petition has been filed with delay of 203 days. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para -3, which runs as follows: That there is a delay of.....days in filing the present Revision Petition. This is on account of the following Reasons - - (i) That order dated 25.6.2012 was dispatched by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula on 10.7.2012;

(ii) That when the First Appeal was finally heard by the Hon''ble State Commission, Haryana, the file was returned by the Counsel for the petitioner to the Representative of the petitioner -company. Upon receipt of the impugned order dated 25.6.2012, Counsel for the petitioner requested for the Court file, so that the revision petition could be drafted. The representative of the petitioner -company inadvertently had tied the Court file in the present case with another case pending. As such, the file could not be traced and the revision petition could not be drafted without the Court file;

(iii) That in the meantime, the complainants challenged the same order before this Hon''ble Commission by filing revision petition No. 3701/2012 and the Hon''ble Commission vide order dated 29.11.2012 was pleased to issue Notice.

(iv) That the office of the petitioner -company was searched and they found that the said file had been tagged by the representative with another Court file. This was inadvertently and bona fide error on the part of the office of the petitioner -company. When notice of the revision petition No. 3701/2012 filed by the complainants was received, the petitioner -company had its office completely searched and it was ultimately revealed that the Court file had been inadvertently kept with another Court file.

(v) That the file was traced in middle of March, 2013. The revision petition was drafted. All the five annexures were retyped and the revision petition as ready for filing in end of March, 2013. In the meantime, the revision petition No. 3701/2012 was also listed before this Hon''ble Commission on 11.4.2013 and Counsel appeared on behalf of the present petitioners (respondents in the said revision petition No. 3701/2012). These developments were also informed to this Hon''ble Commission and it was informed that a cross revision petition shall be filed shortly. Accordingly, the present revision petition is being filed.

We are not satisfied with such like explanations. This is a fragile explanation, which does not ring the bell. Such like stories can be created at any time. The person who had searched and found out the file does not disclose the date when that file was searched. Day -today explanation was not mentioned. It appears that it is a counterblast to the revision petition filed by the opposite party, which is pending in this Court and was filed in time. The case is barred by time and this case neatly dovetails with the following authorities, Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, : I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) : : I (2009) SLT 701and in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., : AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner & Ors., : AIR 1977 SC 1221.

NOW we turn to the merits of this case. In respect of another revision petition bearing No. 3701/2012, Prem Parkash Goel, since deceased Proprietor, M/s. Jiwan Parkash Prem Parkash Arms and Ammunitions Dealer booked 12 wooden boxes of cartridges weighing 270 kgs. on 23.3.2004 at a price of Rs. 3,13,664. The Green Carriers and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., opposite party No. 1 were to deliver the same to the complainant company at his shop from Pune to Jind. Payment was made in advance. The said consignment was not received by the complainant. It transpired that a part of the consignment was burnt. The opposite party refused to compensate the complainant. Complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,13,664 within thirty days failing which the same would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order of the complaint till realization of amount. That order was upheld by the State Commission.

THE grievance of the petitioner is that he should be allowed interest @ 9% per annum either from the date of the arrival of the consignment or from the date of the complaint. He has invited our attention towards two authorities by Apex Court, which are reported in Dharampal & Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corpn., : V (2008) SLT 354 : : III (2008) ACC 1 (SC) : : 1986 -2008 Consumer 13522 (NS) decided on 12.5.2008 and Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., : IV (2011) SLT 303 : II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) : (2011) 11 SCC 269. The para 26 of the case authority is relevant and the same is hereby reproduced: It is correct that the Act does not contain any provision for grant of interest, but on account of a catena of cases of this Court that interest can still be awarded, taking recourse to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do complete justice between the parties. We accordingly do so. This principle is based upon justice, equity and good conscience, which would certainly authorize us to grant interest, otherwise, the very purpose of awarding compensation to the appellant would be defeated. We accordingly deem it fit to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing the complaint till it is actually paid.

On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent raises three objections. First of all, the petitioner is not a consumer. The goods were to be resold. Secondly, that Jind Court has got no jurisdiction because none of the part of cause of action arose at Jind and the opposite party had no office at Jind. The goods were burnt at Pune and only Pune Court had the jurisdiction. Lastly, the petitioner had no contract with the complainant but with Ammunition Factory at Pune. Again there is no privity of contract between the parties.

WE are of the considered view that all these arguments were raised merely for the sake of cavil. The complainant is a consignee. Privity of contract stands established. The goods were to be arrived at Jind. Consequently, cause of action also arose at Jind. This is a case under the Carriers Act; consequently, the complainant is a consumer.

IN the result, we hereby modify the judgment given by the District Forum and direct that the interest @ 9% be paid from the date of the complaint. Both revision petitions are disposed of in above terms.