IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT F.A.NO.90/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.82/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Dharmapuri @

Krishnagiri)

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025

1. The Partner M/s. MSS Transport Mettur Transport

9/29, Square Market Mettur Dam, Mettur Taluk Salem District- 636 401

2. The Manager MSS Transport Dharmapuri Branch Office

410, Pennagaram Road Kumarasamipettai Kumarasamipettai Post Dharmapuri Taluk and District

3. The Manager MSS Transport

331, Albert Victor Road Fort M/s. S. Mayilnathan Kalasipalayam, Bengaluru Counsel for Karnataka Appellants / 1 to 3 Opposite parties Vs.

1. M/s. Mangai Readymades Rep. by its Proprietor Muniraj, S/o. Velu M/s. S. Irfan Basha Sidda Veerappa Chetti Street Counsel for Dharmapuri – 636 701 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

2. M/s. Hitesh Garments Rep. by its Proprietor Shop No.212, 1^st Floor, SBS Complex M/s. K. Bharani Raj Near Lal Building, Mamulpet Counsel for Bangalore, Karnataka 2^nd Respondent/ 4^th Opposite party The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission has allowed the complaint as against the 1 to 3 opposite parties. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1 to 3 opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.3.5.2024 in CC.No.82/2024.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant & R2 and perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT (Open court)

1. The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

2. The parties shall be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission in the original complaint.

3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Mangai Readymades. For the sale during ‘Diwali’ the complainant has ordered new varieties of women clothing, including western wears for women from the 4^th opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.1,33,150/-. The 4^th opposite party had sent the goods neatly packed through the 3^rd opposite parties transports on 23.10.2023. But the goods were neither delivered, nor returned back to the sender. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have not taken any effective steps to traceout the goods. Therefore, alleging negligence on the part of the 1 to 3 opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to deliver the consignment containing clothing products immediately and to compensate the financial losses incurred by the complainant due to the delay and to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of money and reputation alongwith interest @24% p.a., from 29.10.2023, and to pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, alongwith cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. The Appellants/ opposite parties, though served, were remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1 to 3 opposite parties and had directed the 1 to 3 opposite parties to deliver the consignment or to pay the value of consignment @ Rs.1,33,150/- and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.20000/- compensation for mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.10000/-. The complaint against the 4^th opposite party was dismissed. Aggrieved over the said order, the 1 to 3 opposite parties have filed this appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

5. The learned counsel for