IMPORTANT POINT
State Commissions and District Forum do not have power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in orders passed by them.

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—These two revision petitions challenge the orders dated 28.03.2011 and 21.06.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Revision Petition no. 7 of 2011 which, in turn, was directed against the order dated 30.12.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the District Forum’) on interim application (IA) no. 198 of 2010 in Consumer Complaint no. 932 of 2010.

2. Ankit Agarwal, one of the petitioners (as the proprietor of Bigapple Life, Secunderabad) before us approached the District Forum with the allegation of deficiency in service against the seven opposite parties (OPs) which included M/s Hind Freight Services Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad (OP 3 – hereafter, ‘HFSPL’) and M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad (OP 7 –hereafter, ‘CCIL’).

3. The case of the complainant was that it was an importer and distributor of computers and computer parts and peripherals. It had placed order for such goods on OP 5 & 6 (M/s Cameco Technologies LLC and M/s Light Source Industries, both of the USA). Orders for transporting these goods (one container each of computers and computer parts and peripherals) from the suppliers warehouse to the Inland Container Deport (‘ICD’) of the Government of India, Hyderabad were placed on M/s Sea Master Shipping Company, a US Agent of M/s Mediterranean Shipping Company SA. However, OP 4 did not pick up the goods from the suppliers for a long time in spite of repeated reminders. The two containers were expected to reach ICD Hyderabad in 40 days but OPs concerned took nearly five months in delivering them at the ICD. The dispute arose primarily between the complainant and OPs 3 and 7, i.e., HFSPL and CCI regarding payment of penal charges for delayed lifting of the containers/ goods. The case of the complainant was that the delays were on account of shipping agencies and their associates in India including HFSPL, whereas both HFSPL and CCI contended that they could not release the goods unless the charges due to them were paid fully by the complainant, the consignee of the goods on production of documents.

4. While the complaint was under consideration of the District Forum, the complainant moved an interim application (no. 198 of 2010) seeking direction of the District Forum to the OPs 3 and 7 to release the goods, pending disposal of the compliant.

5. After hearing the parties, the District Forum by its aforesaid order gave the following directions:

“In the result, petition of the petitioner is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the goods by collecting the necessary amount (as shown in the memo filed by the respondent no. 7) and on obtaining a clearance certificate from the respondent no. 1. No order as to costs.”

6. It may be added that according to the District Forum, the amount mentioned by CCI in the memo referred to the District Forum’s order was Rs.1,51,573/- plus service tax per container and, therefore, the total amount was Rs.3,03,000/- plus service tax.

7. The complainant challenged this order of the District Forum before the State Commission by way of a revision petition. By its impugned order dated 28.03.2011 the State Commission partly allowed the petition with the following observations:

“8. Keeping in view of mitigating circumstances that the petitioner has ever been ready to discharge his part of liability, the respondents no. 5 and 6 handed over the consignment at the earliest point of time and the respondents no. 1 and 4 dillydallied the matter till the consignment were dispatched from USA to India and by application of principles of natural justice, we are inclined to hold that it would serve the interest of justice if the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.2,89,573/- plus service tax to the respondent no. 7 and deposit a sum of Rs.3,83,640/- with the District Forum for the purpose of release of the two consignments. Whether t