IMPORTANT POINT
State Commission must pass a speaking order.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13.02.2012 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 657 of 2010.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/ complainant – company came in contact with the opposite party-company through its Regional Manager, i.e., Petitioner No. 2/OP No. 2 and assured the respondent that they would provide its services for carrying tea samples/ tea packages anywhere in the world within a short period of time when required. They also agreed to extend credit facilities in making the payment of carrying charges/bills as and when the company would raise the bills/ invoices for providing such services. Accordingly, the company used to hand over its tea samples/ tea packages to the petitioner for onward delivery of the same to its different destinations including at United Kingdom, United State of America, Canada, China etc., from time to time.

3. On 09.10.2009 the respondent had handed over 13 packages of the best qualities of different tea samples for delivery to one M/s Tea Source in USA. The said 13 packages were supposed to be delivered within a reasonable period of seven days. But they have neither delivered the packages of tea samples nor did it return the samples. Thereafter, due to the act and conduct of the petitioner – company in dealing with several consignments, which were either not delivered or mis-delivered or late delivered or delivered in damaged conditions, the respondent was compelled to issue stop payment instructions for its cheques issued to the petitioner.

4. However, thereafter, on 20.11.2009 the respondent again handed over 12 packages for onward delivery from Siliguri to France, Siliguiri to London and Siliguri to Canada on 27.11.2009 and the same were also not delivered. On an enquiry it was found that the petitioner had kept the samples at its Kolkata office and did not forward the same as the respondent had not cleared the outstanding bills of Rs.6.00 lakh. The respondent, thereafter sent legal notice on 01.02.2010 to the petitioner stating inter alia that in case the consignments were not returned within a period of seven days, it would be presumed that the same have been misappropriated. No reply was received and the said act on the part of the petitioner was unjustified and unreasonable and that the performance of the work and services on the part of the petitioner and its officials was found deficient and negligent and it had caused huge monetary loss to the respondent. The losses and damages had been assessed at Rs.10.00 lakh besides the packages which were not delivered the value of which was to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakh. It was thereafter prayed that the petitioner company be directed to pay the following:

1. To return the tea samples/ tea packages, which handed over to the OP companies by the complainant company on the basis of three air way bills bearing Nos. GD 623 139 335 WW; No. GD 623 135 775 WW and No. GD 623 135 784 WW or alternatively to pay the value of the said tea samples/ tea packages to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakh (12,735.40 US $) to the complainant company;

2. To make the payment of sum of Rs.10.00 lakh to the complainant company towards the negligence and deficiency in services of the OPs and/ or the damages suffered by the complainant company due to non-delivery of the said team samples/ tea packages to the consignees thereof;

3. To pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant company towards the losses and damages as suffered on account of the sufferings of its directions from mental pain and agony;

4. Interest and pendent-lite interest @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount, till payment;

5. Cost of proceeding and;

6. Any other order or orders or relieves to which the Hon’ble Forum may deem just and proper for the ends of justice and for this act of kindness the complainant company as in duty bound sha