Shanker Golden Transport Company vs Ambika Sales

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 3.6.2010, passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1160/2009, Ambika Sales, Jaipur v. M/s. Shanker Golden Transport Company, vide which, while allowing the appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No. 1 booked goods with opposite party No. 1/petitioner on 28.9.2005 through Builty No. 404730 and on 1.10.2005 through Builty No. 405962. Both these Builties were of self and goods of both these Builties was to be delivered only after getting payment of Rs. 91,294 from opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2. Opposite party -No. 1 delivered goods to opposite party No. 2 without endorsement by the complainant and without receiving payment of Rs. 91,294. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party No. 1 contested complaint and submitted that as per oral instructions of complainant, goods were handed over to opposite party No. 2. Complainant does not want to recover money from opposite party No. 2 and has filed complaint in collusion. It was, further, submitted that after delivery of goods, for six months, complainant did not contacted to the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Complainant deleted opposite party No. 2 on 14.2.2007. The District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

AFTER admission, respondent No. 2 was not served, as he stood deleted by the complainant. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that goods of self Builty were delivered by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 as per instructions of the complainant and the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint even then, the State Commission committed error in allowing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

IT is admitted case of the parties that complainant transported goods vide two self Builties through opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 delivered goods to opposite party No. 2. The short question to be decided is whether any payment of value of goods was to be received by opposite party No. 1 while delivering goods to opposite party No. 2. Admittedly, builties do not mention value of the goods and only freight etc. to be charged has been indicated on the builty. Perusal of record clearly reveals that after receiving freight and other charges, goods were delivered by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 on production of original Builty. Opposite party No. 1 specifically pleaded that goods were delivered to opposite party No. 2, as per instructions of complainant himself. Complainant''s grievance is only to the extent that payment was not taken by opposite party No. 1 from opposite party No. 2 at the time of delivery of goods. There was no question of receiving payment as Builty did not contain price of the goods as well as self Builties goods are to be delivered to the person, who presents original Builty without making any payment. Petitioner rightly delivered goods to opposite party No. 2 on presentation of original builty and the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.

COMPLAINANT impleaded opposite party No. 2 in the complaint who received goods of self -Builty, but later on, deleted opposite party No. 2 from the array of parties. It shows collusion between the complainant and opposite party No. 2, who had received goods of self -Builty, sent by complainant. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not place original Builty on record and in the absence of original Builty, petitioner was not liable to make payment of value of the goods of the Builty and the State Commission committed error in allowing complaint and this order is liable to set aside. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 3.6.2010, passed by the State Commission in appeal No. 1160/2009, Ambika Sales, Jaipur v. M/s. Shanker Golden Transport Company, is set aside and order of the District Forum dismissing complaint is affirmed with no order as to costs.