VIJAYANAND ROADLINES LIMITED Vs NAV MAHARASHTRA CHAKAN OIL MILLS LTD

1. -PETITIONER was the opposite party. Respondent/complainant booked 750 kgs. of DL Methonine worth Rs. 1,63,500 with branch of the petitioner at Bhadravati town for delivery of Coastal Hatcheries, Kushalnagar, Kodagu District vide waybill No. 1486807 dated 1. 11. 1998. Consignment reached the destination in a lorry of the petitioner in damaged condition. On being informed of damage, the respondent asked the petitioner to re-deliver consignment at Bhadravati. On threat of charging of heavy demurrage by the petitioner, the respondent took delivery of the consignment on 7. 12. 1998 on payment of Rs. 1,810 to the petitioner. Petitioner issued a damage certificate on 7. 12. 1998 accepting loss of 34 kgs. of DL Methonine (for short DLM ). Respondent alleged that returned DLM being not saleable was destroyed after obtaining expert report from the laboratory. Complaint claiming total amount of Rs. 2,20,265 filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 1,63,500 being the value of consignment along with freight of Rs. 1,810 and cost. Appeal against District Forum''s order filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. While dismissing appeal, the State Commission heavily relied upon the statement of Dr. Vinod Kulkarni examined by the respondent and Dr. Anu Appaiah examined by the respondent. Pursuant to the order dated 5. 4. 2005, the petitioner has filed cross-examinations of both these witnesses. In his cross-examination, said Dr. Appaiah has admitted that DLM is used for manufacturing animal feed and damaged or diluted DLM cannot be used for feed. It is further in his cross-examination that DLM can be used in original form only and not damaged and if DLM is exposed to water and moisture it looses its original value and only original form of DLM can be recycled and not the damaged. Said Dr. Kulkarni found that the returned DLM being exposed to air was unfit for use. Ex. P11 is his report. Having heard Mr. Ranbir Singh for petitioner, in view of said admissions made by the own witness of petitioner and statement of Dr. Kulkarni and report Ex. P11 we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.