Judgment M.B. Shah, President—The complainant, M/s. Sri Tirumala Fertilizers, an authorised dealer of M/s. Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd., filed O.P. No. 810 of 1994 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Godawari District at Kakinda, contending that it had booked for transport of consignment of excess stock of fertilizers to the manufacturing Company, through (Petitioner No. 1 in revision) M/s. Navata Road Transport Regular Parcel Service (hereinafter called the carrier) on 04.04.1993 from Mandapet to Kovvur. For this the Petitioner issued a way bill dated 04.04.1993 in which value of the stock was mentioned as Rs. 1,12,712/- and collected Rs. 177/- towards freight charges. As the goods were not delivered the complaint was filed to recover the amount of Rs. 1,12,712/- with interest and costs. 2. That complaint was dismissed by the District Forum by order dated 04.09.1997 by holding that the matter cannot be dealt with in a summary manner and permitted the parties to approach the Civil Court. It, inter alia, observed that : (a) there is absolutely no material as to the actual value of the stock; (b) while the consignment was booked on 31.03.1993, after a period of six months, i.e. on 17.09.1993 a notice was issued by the carrier to the consignor to come and take delivery as the consignee refused to take delivery on the ground that they did not receive lorry receipt and that it was a stock of fertilisers having expired dates, (c) there was dispute between the parties as to the nature of the stock whether it was an expired stock or fit for utilisation, (d) there was dispute between the parties as to the condition of the stock at the time of booking and as to the responsibility of either of the parties for leakage; (e) a Commissioner was appointed whose report revealed that some portion of the stock was having expired date even at the time of booking of the consignment, (f) there are allegations that though requested, opposite parties did not take steps for return of the stock; equally there is contention that consignee had not taken the delivery despite requests. 3. Against that judgment and order the Complainant preferred First Appeal No. 207 of 2002. The said appeal was allowed. 3. Against that judgment and order the Complainant preferred First Appeal No. 207 of 2002. The said appeal was allowed. The State Commission arrived at the conclusion that as the Petitioners did not inform the complainant immediately and waited for more than 5 months, there was deficiency on the part of the carrier and hence directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,12,712/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 04.04.1993 till the date of payment. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned Counsel for the carrier submitted that the impugned order, on the face of it, is illegal and erroneous because the consignment was transported on 04.04.1993 and for months together neither the consignee took the delivery nor the consignor took any steps for getting back the said-goods. He also pointed out that the District Forum appointed an Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate Commissioner gave a detailed report with regard to the goods. At that time also consignor never bothered to take possession of the said goods nor has applied for the same before the District Forum. It is, therefore, contended that there was no justifiable reason for arriving at the conclusion that there was any deficiency in service by the Petitioner, Carrier. 5. In support of the contention reliance is placed upon the notice dated 17.12.1993 issued by the Petitioner to the complainant stating that the consignment which was sent by way-bill dated 04.04.1993 was transferred to the Lost Property Depo, Vijayawada and was lying uncleared as the consignee at Kovvur has not taken the delivery. A request was also made to clear the consignment on or before 25th December, 1993 by paying the freight and other charges failing which it would be construed that consigner was not interested in taking the delivery of the consignment and, thereafter, necessary proceedings would be taken for its disposal. It was also mentioned that the said registered notice was raised because there was no response to the repeated notices issued by their office from Kovvur. It was also mentioned that the amount due on the L.R. was Rs. 2,730/-. 6. Similar notice was issued to the Manager, Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd. (the consignee). 7. It was also mentioned that the said registered notice was raised because there was no response to the repeated notices issued by their office from Kovvur. It was also mentioned that the amount due on the L.R. was Rs. 2,730/-. 6. Similar notice was issued to the Manager, Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd. (the consignee). 7. In response to this notice, the complainant wrote a letter dated 26.12.1993 requesting the Petitioner to send back the material to Kovvur and that it would be released in favour of the Chief Marketing Manager of the consignee. Further, a request was made that demurrage charges be reduced to the maximum possible since they were extensively dealing with the Petitioner transport company. 8. It appears that the Complainant by its letter dated 31.03.1993 has sent the carrier receipt dated 04.04.1993. By the said letter he has informed the consignee to take delivery of the goods and credit the balance amount in its account. 9. There is also another letter dated 03.10.1993 written by the Complainant to the Petitioner wherein, inter alia, it is stated that pesticides in sound condition were booked from Mandapet to Kovvur branch and they came to know from the letter dated 17.09.1993 that consignee had not taken delivery. It is also mentioned that prior to that no intimation was sent to the complainant. A request was made that they would inform the consignee and arrange to take delivery immediately. Failing this they would take delivery of the stock in sound condition from the petitioner. 10. Thereafter, there is a registered notice sent through an Advocate dated 05.10.1994 given by the complainant to the petitioner wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the complainant received some excess stock of pesticides in the month of February, 1993 from the consignee (the Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd.). Therefore, the same was returned to the Company situated at Kovvur by preparing a bill for a sum of Rs 1,12,712/-. On 17th September, 1993 the complainant received letter from the Kovvur Branch Office with false allegation that the complainant booked the pesticides on 04.04.1993 in leakage condition and that distance between Mandapet to Kovvur is only 35 kms. It was also mentioned that 50% of the stock was available when the complainant visited the godown at Vijayawada. Hence, the notice was issued for delivery of the entire stock. 11. It was also mentioned that 50% of the stock was available when the complainant visited the godown at Vijayawada. Hence, the notice was issued for delivery of the entire stock. 11. Thereafter, there is on record a detailed report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner dated 10.11.1995. The Advocate Commissioners was appointed to inspect the 40 cardboard boxes available in the office of the opposite party No. 3 (M/s. Navatha Road Transport Regular Parcel Service rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada), and to find out whether they are the same as per resented L.R No. 84837/40 dated 31.03.1993 of the respondents. 12. The Advocate Commissioner has inspected the 40 boxes and divided them into three categories, namely, A, B, and C. Category `A' consisted of 8 card-board boxes. It was observed that out of two tins having batch No. 064, manufacturing date September, 1992, expiry date August, 1993. Another two tins having batch No. 0.36 manufacturing date November, 1991 expiry date October, 1992 respectively. Out of four tins one is in broken condition at the point of lid another, one tin having a hole at the bottom point all four tins are completely rusty condition and seems to be old tins. The above said four tins are not tallied with the bill dated 31.03.1993 of respondent/complainant herein. All four tins are not having any contents or any other material. Those are only empty tins but the original seal point is intact. 13. He has opened the next cardboard box and also found that the manufacturing date January, 1992 and expiry date December, 1992 on 38 bottles and another two bottles have no particulars, i.e. batch number date of manufacturing and date of expiry. The address of the manufacturer was that of the consignee. 14. He has further observed as under: "The above 40 bottles (250 ml. each) are liquid contents and the same are tallied with item No. 8, in the bill dated 31.03.1993 and the condition of the bottles are in perfect. I also observed 18 plastic bottles (contains 500 ml. each) 10 bottles of SPECRON – 36 product out of 18 bottles, 9 bottles are having contents (liquid) and remaining 9 bottles are not having any contents, i.e. empty bottles. I have not found any batch number on the 9 bottles which are with contents. But I observed manufacturing date April, 1991 Expiry date August, 1992 on 5 bottles. each) 10 bottles of SPECRON – 36 product out of 18 bottles, 9 bottles are having contents (liquid) and remaining 9 bottles are not having any contents, i.e. empty bottles. I have not found any batch number on the 9 bottles which are with contents. But I observed manufacturing date April, 1991 Expiry date August, 1992 on 5 bottles. It is visible expiry date only i.e. Aug., 92 on 4 bottles. Out of 9 empty bottles on one bottle name of the produce is visible remaining eight bottles are not clearly visible the name of the product and other particulars." 15. There are a number of such observations with regard to various items which are not required to be reproduced here. 16. In our view from the facts which are brought on record it is apparent that the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained. The reasons are as under: (a) From the said Commissioner's report, it is apparent that items which were sent back were having expiry date prior to its consignment. It is, therefore, apparent that as there was dispute between the complainant and the consignee, the consignee has not taken the delivery of the goods. (b) In any set of circumstances, it was for the consignor to take reasonable and appropriate steps within reasonable time for seeing that the consignee take the delivery of the goods, or for return of the said goods. Admittedly, the distance between the two places is only 35 kms., and any of the representative of the consignor could have visited the place within an hour. It was not necessary for them to wait for 5 months till the carrier gave notice on 17th September, 1993. In any set of circumstances, it was for the Complainant to file appropriate application for return of the goods which were found lying with the carrier at least before the District Forum. That type of application was also not filed by the complainant. (c) It cannot be held that the carrier is required to pursue consignor and/or consignee. Further, the carrier's godown cannot be used for storing the goods in case of dispute between the consignor and the consignee. (d) The consignee has not bothered to take the consignment by producing L.R. or informing the carrier about the said consignment. (c) It cannot be held that the carrier is required to pursue consignor and/or consignee. Further, the carrier's godown cannot be used for storing the goods in case of dispute between the consignor and the consignee. (d) The consignee has not bothered to take the consignment by producing L.R. or informing the carrier about the said consignment. The carrier has also produced on record registered acknowledgment dated 17.07.1993, a letter written to the consignee. It is also pointed out that the consignee was contacted by the carriers' local agent. The complainant was from the beginning knowing about the condition and nature of the goods, particularly having expiry date and, therefore, the same were sent back to manufacturer. As per the Commissioner's report 80% of the stock was useless as most of the pesticide were having expiry date even by the time of booking the consignment. (e) Further, it was difficult for the carrier to store the pesticides for 8 months as the owners of the building in the neighbour-hood objected because of stinking smell. It is the say of the carrier that on 21.03.1994 the complainant agreed to take back the goods; but, after physical inspection, after nearly a year, as the stock was found not in good condition, he orally informed that he would abandon the goods. However, after some time he filed a complaint. It is nothing but fraud. 17. Hence, the impugned order dated 07.06.2002 passed by the State Commission in F.A. No. 207 of 2002 is set aside. The order passed by the District Forum is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.