The court upheld the importance of documentary evidence and the burden of proof in establishing claims under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated 24.2.2001, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1863/1999 - entitled Swami Purushottamacharya v. M/s. Preet Freight Carrier & Ors.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had engaged the services of respondent No. 3 for transporting his household goods/articles from Mumbai to Delhi. It was stated that respondent No. 3, for the abovesaid purpose, had arranged Truck No. DI 1L C0733, belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was further stated, in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that 38 packages, containing household articles, were loaded in the abovesaid truck on 26.6.1999 for being transported from Mumbai to Delhi. It was averred that by mistake, in the challan, issued by respondent No. 3, the number of packages/items was mentioned as ‘36’ instead of ‘38’. The truck, carrying the household articles of the appellant, reached Delhi on 1.7.1999 and only 35 items, out of 38 items, loaded in the truck, were delivered to the appellant. The appellant protested about the short delivery and not being satisfied with the reply given by the respondents, reported the matter to the police. In addition, the appellant also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and claiming a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for the loss of the articles in question.

3. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by respondents and in the reply/written version, filed on their behalf, it was stated that only ‘36’ items were delivered by the appellant to the truck driver, an employee of respondent No. 2, for being transported from Mumbai to Delhi and the appellant subsequently managed interpolation in the list by making the number of items as ‘38’ instead of ‘36’. The respondents admitted short delivery of one bag from the goods, delivered to the truck driver. It was stated by the respondents that the appellant had fabricated false evidence to exaggerate his claim by tampering with the list of articles and challan.

4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, while partly allowing the complaint, filed by the appellant, has held the respondents guilty of deficiency in service and on the basis of above findings, has passed the order being impugned in the present proceedings.

5. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The main question, requiring consideration, in the present appeal, is as to whether the appellant had entrusted ‘38’ items for being transported from Mumbai to Delhi to the respondents as alleged or only ‘36’ items as contended by the respondents were entrusted. The age old saying that man may lie but not the circumstances is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the basis of material on record, it is apparent that in the challan in question which, on the point of time, is the first document regarding the entrustment of packages in question. In the abovesaid document the number of items mentioned is only ‘36’ and not ‘38’. In case there was any discrepancy in the number of items as mentioned in the challan, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have protested at that very time when the challan was prepared by the respondents. Before us also the appellant could not give any satisfactory explanation for the above lapse on his part and in the presence of the above facts we are not inclined to accept the version of the appellant. In view of the posi