Fed Ex

adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
edited June 2012 in Miscellaneous
Compliant Case No.126/2002

Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. … Complainant

Through its Public Relation Officer through Mr. Jai Gupta,

Sh. Virendra Rawat advocate.

102-103, Indra Prakash Building,

21, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi


Versus

1. P & M Logistic Co. (Pvt) Ltd …. Opposite Party
Through Capt. Rajan Nath, through Mr. M.L. Sharma,
B-214/215, Somdutt Chamber advocate
5, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi.

2. Fed Ex ….Opposite Part

Through its General Manager, through Ms. Renuka Singh

Indraprakash Building, advocate.

Ground Floor 2 & 3,

Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place, New Delhi

CORAM



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member

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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)


1. A fare was to be held in Berlin from 16th to 20th March 2002 and the Government of India had invited all States to participate including the State of Uttranchal asked its Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., to participate and the complainant nominated four persons to participate therein. The complainant deposited Rs.21,00,000/- as participation fees for sending a team of four persons on its behalf in the fare.

2. Some printed publicity material was handed over by the complainant to OP No.1 for transmission to Berlin with the understanding that the material will be delivered to them at Berlin by 12.03.2002. The delegation of the complainant reached Berlin on 14.03.2002 but the consignment of publicity material did not reach them and the consignment was offered for delivery to them on 19.03.2002, while the fare was to end on 20.03.2002. The delegation therefore refused to accept the delivery and the complainant has now sued the OP No.1 and OP No.2 claiming the following reliefs against OP No.1 only:

(i) Refund of the charged amount Rs.95,374

(ii) Return of consignment or its equivalent value amount to Rs.4,05,000/-

(iii) Compensation for the loss of revenue due to loss of business arising out of the deficiency in service of the OP No.1 – 14,00,000/-

(iv) Exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.



3. OP No.1 in reply to the earlier notice given by the complainant had stated that it had given consignment to OP No.2 Federal Express Corporation ON 08.03.2002 for transmission and delivery at Berlin and OP No.2 failed to do the same and is consequently responsible for damages. That is how OP No.2 was implicated.

4. In their written statement filed by OP No.1 and 2, OP No.1 has passed blame and liability over OP No.2 while OP No.2 says that there being no privity of contract between it and the complainant it is OP No.1 which is liable for the same. Both have also pleaded that from 09.03.2002 onwards there were weekend holidays. On 13.03.2002 there was Shivratri and therefore the consignment was cleared only on 13.03.2002, which was dispatched routed through Paris and Frankfurt, which reached Frankfurt on 16.03.2002 which was Saturday and 16th and 17th March 2002 being also the weekend holidays, the custom authorities cleared the consignment on 18.03.2002, which was offered for delivery on 19.03.2002.

5. We have heard Sh. Jai Gupta, counsel for the complainant, Sh. M.L. Sharma, counsel for OP No.1 and Ms. Renuka Singh, Counsel for OP No.2.

6. The contract was initially between the complainant and OP No.1 it was therefore the responsibility of OP No.1 to deliver the consignment at the appropriate time and if it failed to do so it cannot pass the buck to OP No.2. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.2 and how and in what manner the transmission of the consignment was to be made was the responsibility of OP No1, and he was answerable to the complainant for the same. OP No.2 contended that the complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2002 (Exb -3 ) and in the Airway Bill(Exb.-2) has declared the value of the consignment as Rs.38,000/-. What the OP No.2 says we are not therefore concerned with what OP No.2 says and we have only to see whether there was any legitimate justification by OP No.1 for non-delivery of the consignment in time. The consignment was delivered to OP No.1 on 08.03.2002 and the OP No.1 had promised the complainant to deliver the same at Berlin on 12.03.2002. Non-delivery of the same on the agreed date justifies a claim for compensation by the complainant against the OP No.1. There was no vis-major and nothing beyond the control of OP No.1 which could justify the non-delivery of the consignment in time.

7. Since it was responsibility of OP No.1 to deliver the consignment in time it is the OP No.1 which is liable for damages because the complainant’s delegation could not participate in the fare because of non-delivery of the publicity material. The OP No.1, therefore is clearly liable for damages and must compensate the complainant in the following manner:



(i) OP No.1 will refund the charged amount of Rs.95,374/- to the complainant.



(ii) Return the value of the consignment amounting to Rs.38,000/- as declared by the complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2002 (Exb.-3) and in Airway Bill (Exb.-2).



(iii) OP No.1 will pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rs. Ten Lac) to the complainant for non-delivery of the consignment.



(iv) OP No.1 will pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.



8. Complaint is disposed of in above terms. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

10. Announced on the 03rd day of November 2009.

Comments

  • Amrita BahadurAmrita Bahadur Junior Member
    edited June 2012
    hi,

    I had couriered one gift to one of my friends which was supposed to be delivered on 7th June. As per the courier company it is delivered, but the designated person has not received it yet. After raising the complaint on their customer care number and following up for almost 8 days i got DRS copy to verify signature proof. I was surprised to see that corresponding the consignment number 'Awb no 8009 2289 9693' there was no contact number of the person to whom it was delivered. As per the receipt it was delivered at 2:25 pm , but there was no one at home to receive the consignment. It has been 12 days since i am following up with this missing consignment and the courier company seems to be not at all interested in resolving this issue. Also i want to claim for those calls i had been making at the customer care number for past 2 weeks. Complaint Number is :0608006930. Also attached is the copy i received on mail.
Sign In or Register to comment.