Ashok Bhan, President—Aggrieved against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short), the complainant/petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition. State Commission by the impugned Order, has set aside the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiz Hazari, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short).

2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:

Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and supply of all kinds of insecticides and pesticides for the purpose of agriculture having its depots and C.F. Agents throughout India. All the sale proceeds of the goods supplied from anywhere are to be recovered through the bankers of the petitioner at Delhi subject to Delhi jurisdiction. Under an implied contract between the petitioner and the respondents, it was agreed that the consignment of pesticides booked from Delhi were to be delivered at Kotkapura on producing the original G.R. (Goods Receipt) by the consignee and the freight was to be paid by the consignee and the respondent was specifically directed to deliver the entrusted property at the destination to the consignee or to the consignor or any endorsee thereon on receipts of the original G.R. No.2905 dated 03.07.1995. The value of consignment was Rs.30,238/-. The consignment entrusted to the respondent was to be supplied on the order received from

M/s Ann Jay Enterprises, Satta Bazar, Kotkapura (Punjab). The invoice of consignment along with the bill of exchange and the respective goods receipt were sent to the bank for collection of the payments from the purchaser of the goods, i.e., M/s Ann Jay Enterprises. The said bill for payment was presented by the bankers to the drawee and the same was returned unpaid by the bankers with the remarks “payment not forthcoming”. On receipt of the unpaid bill from the bankers, the petitioner requested the respondent at its Delhi office on 06.08.1997 to rebook the entrusted goods from Kotkapura to Delhi as the same was not delivered at the destination but the respondent failed to comply with the direction of the petitioner. Again on 08.05.1998, a written request was sent to the Head Office at Jalandhar with C.C. to its Branch Office at Delhi. The Head Office at Jalandhar gave a written direction to Branch Office at Delhi on 12.05.1998 to look into the matter and to arrange either rebooking of consignment or payment of Rs.30.238/-. Subsequently, in July, 1998, another letter was sent to the respondent with attention to Sardar Gurdeep Singh to take necessary action. On 21.05.1998, petitioner again issued a registered letter to the respondent no.1 to which respondent no.1 replied on 01.09.1998 directing the agent at Kotkapura to release the payment by sending the demand draft. Even then, no action was taken by respondent no.1. There were further correspondences also which we may not dilate on. On inquiry made by the petitioner, it was revealed that respondents had delivered the entrusted goods to M/s Ann Jay Enterprises of Kotkapura without obtaining the original G.R. and collected the value of the goods from them. Thereafter, petitioner filed the complaint seeking a direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.30,238/- being the value of consignment along with interest @ 24% per annum and other compensation and the litigation charges.

3. Notice was sent to both the respondents by postal receipt nos.1136 and 1138 dated 02.11.2001. One of the envelopes containing notice was received back but the other was delivered. The District Forum taking it to be a deemed service, proceeded with the case. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents at the relevant date. The respondents were proceeded ex parte.

4. Petitioner adduced his ex parte evidence by way of affidavit.

5. The District Forum, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioner, allowed the complaint and directed the resp