IMPORTANT POINT
When the goods are damaged due to deficiency in service of the OP, it must compensate.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the order dated 2.4.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), by which the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is a Shipping Company and carries goods by sea by its vessel for different persons in consideration of freight paid. Pursuant to an order placed by an overseas consignee M/s Arabian Gulf Food Stuff EST of Dubai, the Complainant/Respondent herein sent consignment of 2150 pieces of fresh water melons weighing 16,000 kg by sea through the Petitioner by their vessel “THOR CHAMPION V-008” for safe carriage from Mumbai to Dubai. When the goods reached the destination, the Municipal Authorities of Dubai inspected the Cargo and found that the water melons had decayed. They did not give clearance for unloading of the goods in question. The Complainant/Respondent herein filed a Complaint seeking damages to the extent of Rs.2,45,811.44p. along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim till payment. In the Complaint, a specific averment was made by the Complainant/Respondent that he is the sole proprietor of the business under the name and style “M.S. Overseas”. He has been carrying his business to earn livelihood and there is no commercial motive in the said business. The District Forum, vide order dated 12.3.2013, after examining and evaluating the averments made in the Complaint, the written version as also the evidence filed by the parties, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was deficient in service, as the goods which were transported by it were having all the doors closed instead of one door open, which resulted in decay of water melons, as it is a perishable commodity and awarded Rs.2,45,811/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and interest @ 10% p.a., if the amount is not paid within 45 days.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, examined the findings recorded by the District Forum and came to the conclusion that the order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference and it is based on correct appreciation of evidence and material on record. Petitioner, still feeling aggrieved, has approached this Commission by filing this Revision Petition.

3. Learned Counsel submitted that the survey was done behind the back of the Petitioner and even from the perusal of the survey report it is not established that one door was left open while the goods were being transported to its destination. The submission is wholly misconceived. From perusal of the survey report, it is clear that it was specifically mentioned that one door, on which seal of the Petitioner is there, was closed but the door is broken. One fails to understand if the door was open when the goods were carried/transported to its destination, there is no question of the door being broken at the time of inspection. It will only break if the door is closed at the time of inspection because of opening the said door and making the submission either the parties will use some machineries/instruments or may use force to open the door. It appears that the door was broken only because of the force applied by the Municipal Authorities, as the seal of the Dubai Municipal Authorities was found intact. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the seal of the Municipal Authorities Dubai was found to be broken. On the other hand, the door on which the seal was affixed, was found to be broken. All these facts justify the view taken by the District Forum as well as the State Commission and does not call for any interference in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction.

4. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.