JUDGMENT - C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER:---This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 30th June, 1993 by which the Opposite Party was directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 3,65,868.00 together with interest 18% per annum. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under. 2.Opposite Party No. 1 is a Transport Company. It provides services for the transportation of goods by charging freights etc. Opposite Party No. 1 had appointed opposite party No. 2 as their booking agents and gave their goods receipts for booking purposes. The complainant is a manufacturer of various types of synthetic cloths. The complainant gave 52 bales, particulars of which are described in the complaint, for transportation from Bhilwara to Kanpur on payment of freight charges to the opposite parties. After taking delivery of the bales, the opposite parties issued GRs. The opposite parties were required to give the 52 bales at Kanpur to the consignee, Bank of India or its endorsee after collecting the consignee copies of GR. The complainant issued hundies for the value of the goods and along with the goods receipts negotiated the same through their Bankers, Bank of India and asked the Bankers to deliver the goods receipt to the parties mentioned in the statement after receiving the amount described in the Hundi. According to the complainant, the opposite parties were not supposed to deliver the goods to anybody without collecting the consignee copy of the goods receipt. The goods reached the destination but the concerned party did not come forward to retire the bills and Hundies by making payment to the Bank. After waiting for a stipulated time, the Bank returned the bills, hundies and the GRs to the banker of the complainant at Bhilwara who returned the documents to the complainant after charging necessary charges. The complainant sent his representative to take delivery of the goods by offering consignee copies of the GR. The case pleaded by the complainant was that if the purchaser did not retire the hundies and goods receipt from the Bank, then the transporter was obliged to deliver the goods at destination to the consignor after taking goods receipt or rebook them to the original place of transportation and deliver to the consignor. The case pleaded by the complainant was that if the purchaser did not retire the hundies and goods receipt from the Bank, then the transporter was obliged to deliver the goods at destination to the consignor after taking goods receipt or rebook them to the original place of transportation and deliver to the consignor. The opposite parties did not deliver back the goods to the complainant which they were duty bound to do as a Public Transport Company. The complainant learnt that the opposite parties delivered the goods negligently without obtaining the consignee copy of the GR. The complainant served notice on the opposite parties either to deliver back the goods or pay its price. The amount claimed was Rs. 5,71,868.00. As the opposite parties failed to comply with the terms of the notice, the complainant was obliged to file the complaint before the State Commission claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,71,868.00. 3.Needless to say that Opposite Party No. 1 contested the complaint. It was pleaded that the goods were delivered to the consignees at destination under instructions and to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant had collected dues directly from the consignee which clearly showed that the Complainant was interested to deliver goods direct to the consignee. The complainant had given instructions that in case the consignee did not retire the documents from Bank, the opposite party could deliver the goods to the consignee without the documents. It was further pleaded that there was no such general practice to rebook the goods to the original place of booking without written instructions from the consignor. Objection was also taken that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as there was a contract between the parties that all the disputes would be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction as per terms of the Clause printed in the GRs. On the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record, the State Commission formulated three points for determination : 1. Whether the State Commission of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint? 2. Whether the service relating to transportation of goods viz. 52 bales suffered from deficiency inasmuch as the goods delivered to unauthorised persons without taking goods receipt and payment ? 3. If the answer to question Nos. Whether the State Commission of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint? 2. Whether the service relating to transportation of goods viz. 52 bales suffered from deficiency inasmuch as the goods delivered to unauthorised persons without taking goods receipt and payment ? 3. If the answer to question Nos. 1 2 are in favour of the Complainant then to what amount the complainant is entitled from the opposite parties ? On point No. 1, the State Commission returned the finding that the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Point No. 2 was decided in favour of the complainant by holding that the services rendered by the opposite party suffered from deficiency. Against point No. 3 the Complainant was found entitled to Rs. 3,65,868.00. 4.Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the opposite party had filed the present appeal which is under consideration. 5.A.K. Kohli, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the finding of the State Commission that the State Commission of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint was wrong and contrary to facts and law. According to him, there was a condition printed on the GR that all dispute would be subject to Delhi jurisdiction. On the other hand, S.K. Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the finding of State Commission on this point was correct and did not call for interference. 6.We have examined the point very carefully. The State Commission after perusing the relevant Clause in the GR, came to the finding that there was nothing in the evidence to show that the attention of the complainant was drawn to the said condition at or before the delivery of the goods receipt. There was no proof that the condition relating to jurisdiction was the result of a negotiated contract. The complainant had not agreed to that condition. It was further found that the condition that "all disputes subject to Delhi Jurisdiction" did not exclude the jurisdiction of the State Commission which otherwise it had under the law as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. This finding was returned on the basis of the law down by the Apex Court reported as (A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Saler)1, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1239. This finding was returned on the basis of the law down by the Apex Court reported as (A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Saler)1, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1239. 7.We have gone through the evidence on this point and carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court. In our opinion, the analysis of the State Commission on this point is correct and we affirm the finding. We find no force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and it is repelled. 8.The next point urged on behalf of the appellant was that the State Commission wrongly rejected the documents produced by the appellant in support of its case that the goods were delivered to the consignee as per instructions of the complainant and that the complainant had recovered the amounts from consignee. We have also considered this aspect of the case. The note printed on each of the GR receipt is in the following terms: "The consignments covered by this set of Special Lorry Receipt Form shall be stored at destination under the control of the Transport Operator and shall be delivered to or to the order of the Consignee's Bank whose name is mentioned in the Lorry Receipt. It will under no circumstances be delivered to anyone without the written authority from the Consignee's Bank or its order, endorsed on the consignee copy or on a separate Letter of Authority." 9.In terms of this note it is clear that the goods under the consignment, under no circumstances would be delivered to anybody without the written authority from the consignor or its order endorsed on the consignee's copy or separate letter of authority. The plea which the appellant had taken was contrary to the note printed on the goods receipt. We have carefully reappraised the evidence on this aspect. In our opinion, the State Commission on justifiable ground discarded the plea of the appellant that the goods were delivered to the consignee under the authority of the complainant. The State Commission rightly and for cogent reasons accepted the explanation given by the complainant in respect of Annexures 1 to 18. We find that the State Commission had taken into consideration all the relevant factors while deciding this point. There has been a proper and mindful appreciation of the evidence. The finding is justified and is not against the weight of the evidence. We find that the State Commission had taken into consideration all the relevant factors while deciding this point. There has been a proper and mindful appreciation of the evidence. The finding is justified and is not against the weight of the evidence. It is settled law that the finding of fact arrived at on appreciation of evidence should not be lightly interfered with. In view of this, we find no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 10.It was feebly argued that the compensation allowed by the State Commission was on the higher side. We find no force in this contention. Value of the goods as per 52 invoices which were produced by complainant was Rs. 3.00 lakhs. On account of wrong delivery which constituted deficiency in service, the complainant was put to loss of the value of the goods. The complainant was deprived of the value of the goods and therefore, the State Commission was justified in allowing interest to the complainant. No other point was argued. 11.In view of above discussion, we see no merit in this appeal and same is dismissed. The appellant shall pay costs to the respondent which are quantified at Rs. 2,000.00. Appeal dismissed.