2011 (12) TMI 800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ooked a consignment of monoblock pumps with the appellant for transportation from Coimbatore to respondents No. 1 and 2 at Gwalior in March, 1997. While the appellant was transporting the consignment in a truck, there was an accident and the monoblock pumps were damaged. The respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, did not take delivery of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps at Gwalior. In the circumstances, the appellant returned the 198 damaged monoblock pumps to the respondent No. 3. 3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 then filed Complaint No. 101 of 1998 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, and their case in the complaint was that they had paid the price of the consignment to respondent No. 3 and wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....03.1998) till the date of payment. The appellant filed a revision but by the impugned order dated 18.02.2003 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision. 5. On 10.07.2003, this Court took note of the fact that the amount awarded in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2 by the District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum had been deposited and the counsel for the appellant had no objection to the amount to be paid to respondents No. 1 and 2. This Court in its order dated 10.07.2003 issued notice limited to the question of law raised before the Court. In the order dated 10.07.2003, however, this Court appears to have recorded a different question of law and hence the appellant has filed an application ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 and that due to delay the monoblock pumps have become useless and have no value at all. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 3 and we are of the considered opinion that if the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,60,131/- to respondents No. 1 and 2 and this sum of Rs. Rs. 3,60,131/- covered the price of the monoblock pumps and this price of the monoblock pumps had also received by respondent No. 3 from the respondents No. 1 and 2, the appellant was entitled to the return of the damaged 198 monoblock pumps from respondent No. 1. We are also of the view that in case the respondent No. 3 has d....