Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sudhir Goyal vs Cargo Movers (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... on 4 March, 2009

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 







 



 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:   DELHI

 

(Constituted
under Section-9 Clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) 

 

  

 

  

 Date of Decision:  04-03-2009

 

  

 Complaint Case No. C-09/04

 

  

 

  

 

Shri Sudhir Goyal, 

 

Proprietor M/s.
Creations, 

 

Shop No.30, Red Fort, 

 

  Delhi 110006.  
.. Complainant 

 

  

 

  

 

Versus 

 

  

 

1. Cargo Movers (  India) Pvt. Ltd. 

 

  Wakefield House, 

 

1st Floor,   Sprott
  Road, 

 

Ballard Estate, 

 

Mumbai. 

 

  

 

2. All Cargo Global Logistic Limited, 

 

Plot No.2, LSC, 2nd Floor, 

 

  Vardhaman  Plaza, Kalkaji, 

 

  New Delhi. 

 

  

 

3. Disha Cargo Care, 

 

572, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, 

 

Laxmi Nagar, 

 

  Delhi 110092.
 .
Opposite Parties 

 

  

 CORAM 

 

   

 JUSTICE J.D.
KAPOOR, PRESIDENT  

 

MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER 
 

1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

 

JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR (ORAL)  

1. The complaint is being taken up at admission stage.

2. On the allegation of having delivered the consignment at a wrong destination which subsequently resulted in its confiscation and auction, the complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 22.00 Lacs including cost of consignment and interest. However, during arguments the counsel for the complainant has agreed that for pecuniary jurisdiction the compensation be deemed as Rs. 20.00 Lacs and the matter be transferred to the concerned District Forum.

 

3. However, it is settled law that wherever there is no term of agreement, interest does not form part of compensation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction as the question whether the complainant is entitled for interest, if any, and if so at what rate and from which period etc. are always subject of adjudication.

 

4. In view of the above, instead of returning the complaint, we are transferring it to the concerned District Forum, so as to avoid inconvenience to the complainant.

 

5. Complainant shall appear before the District Forum on 06-04-2009.

6. Copy of Order, as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the complainant and to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.

     

(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT         (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER                                                                                     HK