C. Viswanath ORDER
C. Viswanath, (Presiding Member)
1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 48/2016 dated 17.01.2019.
2. The Petitioner/Complainant stated in his Complaint that he handed over a carton 50 pcs of Gun metal bushes to Mr. Mathew Kurien of M/s. Samuelsons, Opposite Party No. 4 along with cash payment of Rs. 11,400/- for the services of door delivery of cargo by air to the buyer of the Petitioner, namely Aluworks Ltd. in Ghana. Opposite Party No. 4 handed over the cargo to Opposite Party No. 3, who in turn handed over the same to Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite No. 2 again handed over the cargo to the Respondent, vide airway bill dated 15.02.2012. It was further stated, vide letter dated 16.04.2012, that the Respondent sent the cargo to the airport but the carton was never delivered to the buyer of the Petitioner in Ghana. It was lost during Respondent's custody in the warehouse at the airport in Ghana. On 05.06.2012, the Petitioner submitted claim for US dollar 3000 to the Respondent, which was also acknowledged by Opposite Party No. 2, but no response was received, despite notices on 23.07.2012 and 07.08.2012. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
3. The notices were issued against the Respondent as well as Opposite Parties but the Respondent and Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 failed to turn up, despite service of notices. Hence, on 04.04.2013, they were proceeded ex-parte. Opposite No. 4 only contested the present Complaint and filed written statement. Opposite Party No. 4 contended that the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 3 were having a direct deal and Opposite Party No. 4 was not liable. It was contended by Opposite Party No. 4 that as per the instructions of the Petitioner, Opposite Party No. 4 had handed over the cargo to Opposite Party No. 3, vide receipt No. 008, dated 15.02.2012 in favour of the Petitioner. Opposite party No. 3 handed over the carton to Opposite Party No. 2 vide receipt No. A/L/COU-7362, dated 20/02/2012, who again handed over the cargo to the Respondent, vide Airway Bill No. 516292810870, dated 15/02/2012. It was the Respondent, who handled the cargo by Air.
4. District Forum, vide order dated 19.09.2015, partly allowed the Complaint on the ground that it was proved by the Petitioner, by an unrebutted and unchallenged affidavit in evidence, that the carton of gun metal bushes was handed by the Petitioner to Opposite Party No. 4, who handed it over to Opposite Party No. 3 who in turn handed it over to Opposite Party No. 2, who finally gave its custody to the Respondent, who sent it by air to Ghana for delivery to the party concerned at the destination. The said articles could not be delivered to the concerned party at Ghana, as the parcel containing the articles was stolen from the Respondent's warehouse in the airport in Ghana. Opposite Party No. 4, 3 and 2 were mere agents of the Respondent and passed on the articles of the Petitioner for delivery at Ghana. When the articles of the Petitioner were stolen, they were deemed to be in the custody of the Respondent, who despite the claim filed by the Petitioner, had not yet compensated the Petitioner and was therefore, guilty of deficiency in services provided to the Petitioner. The Respondent alone should compensate the Petitioner on account of deficiency in services. Opposite Party No. 4, 3 and 2 had done their duty of passing the parcel containing the articles of the Petitioner to the Respondent and were not liable for the non-delivery of the articles of the Petitioner at Ghana. Thus, the Respondent was dire........