Smt. Bijayalaxmi Giri, Member (W) – This is a complaint for praying to pay a sum of Rs.1, 25, 170/- by the Ops to the Complainant and any other relief which the complainant is entitle to.

            The brief facts of the case is that complainant had sent one sealed packet containing 2363 numbers of meal pass vouchers amounting of Rs.1, 00, 170/- in toto through courier vide consignment No. 48919773 on dt.26.07.13 for delivery of the said sealed packet to Op2 at the destination place. But the sealed packet/ consignment was not delivered to Op2 at the said destination place as confirmed from Op2 through his mobile phone regarding non-receiving of the sealed packet. And after 7 days of postage the complainant intimated the Op1 on non-delivery of the alleged packet to Op2. But the Op1 failed to trace out the said packet. Finding no other way the complainant filed this complaint.

            In support filed:

1. Original copy of consignment dt.26.07.13 bearing challan No.48919773-1 sheet

2. Original copy of reimbursement claim form bearing envelop No.3230683-1 sheet

3. Dt.02.08.14 sent to the complainant by the Op2-1 sheet

            After notice Op1 appeared and filed his written version stating that complainant has never intimated this Op1 regarding non-delivery of the alleged packet and further stating that the complainant had not informed this Op1 regarding non-delivery of sealed packet in writing which is contrary to the provisions U/s. 10 of carriers Act 1865. Further the Op1 stated that the complainant had never disclosed that the alleged packet contains a heavy amount and the said packet should have sealed in presence of the carrier owner for which the sender/ complainant should have given the extra charge for that special packing and in support filed documents i.e. (1) original receipt of destination Kolkata, dt.26.07.13- 1 sheet (2) Xerox copy of document.

            After service of notice the Op2 did not appeared in spite of service of notice to him and hence Op2 was set exparte on 24.04.14.

            On 02.06.14, the Op1 filed certain documents in their support along with a memo for address statement of Op3; the complainant filed a petition for amendment to add Op3 as necessary party which was allowed on 17.07.14 and notice sent to Op2 & Op3 for filing version since Op2 was already set ex parte on 24.04.14. But Op3 though received notice did not appear and set exparte on 18.03.15.

            Heard, the learned counsel for the contesting parties and on perusal of available documents in record it is not disputed that the complainant send a sealed packet through Op1. The counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant had sent the alleged sealed packet for delivery to Op2 on payment of Rs.50/- towards consignment charge. But the said consignment was not delivered to Op2 at its destination and the complainant informed several times to the Op1 who denied taking any action for such non-delivery in such circumstances there is deficiency of service committed by the Op1 & Op3. And in this respect the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon a decision passed by Hon’ble SCDRC, Odisha, Cuttack in F.A No. 341 of 2011 published in 2012 (1) OLR (CSR)- 513 wherein the Hon’ble SCDRC, Odisha opened that when the goods are not delivered, there is a deficiency of service.

            But on the other hand the learned counsel for Op1 has submitted that the complainant had not complied with the provisions as laid down U/s.10 of carriers Act 1865. Section 10 of the Act provides that no suit (or complaint) could be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of goods, unless a notice in writing of the loss as enshrined in the complaint had been given to the carrier before filing but within six months of the time when the complainant came to know about the loss.

            In this instant case, the real issue arised whether the complainant suffered loss on such non-delivery of sealed packet to Op2 and what relief is entitled for such non-delivery of sealed packet. Which was contained of 2363 vouchers and to what extent? In this context section 10 of the carriers Act 1865 depicts that notice of loss or injury to be given within six months, “No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of, or injury to, goods (including containers, pallets or similar Article of transport used to consolidate goods) entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before the institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff/ complainant.

            Hence section 10 requires a notice in the manner setout therein for initiation of a proceeding against a common carrier for loss of goods entrusted for carriage and the object of section 10 is to put the carrier on notice about the claim in respect of loss or damage to the consignment. So that it can make good the loss occasioned. But in this instant case is a matter of non-delivery of the alleged consignment and as such the requirement relating to notice within six months in section 10 of carriers Act 1865 will not attract to a claim based on such non-delivery. In fact section 10 does not use the word non-delivery of goods, but uses the word “loss of” or injury to goods. A case of non-delivery will become a case of loss of consignment only when the common carrier informs the consigner/ consignee about the loss of consignment. But in this case where the compensation for not delivering the consignment note the carrier specifically limited to Rs.100/- only for any cause. Carrier service cannot be held responsible for any short of receipt of items when carrier not made of actual number and details of items in the alleged sealed packet on non-delivery of consignment –booked complainant is entitled to actual loss suffered and not to any remote and induct loss. The loss of consignment by courier Ops 1&3 is a deficiency in service, but before courier is held liable for loss, the consignee should disclose the value of consignment note and ought to have taken steps to get consignment insured.

            Therefore, it is held that the Op1 & 3 courier is only responsible for failure to carry the consignment safely and deliver it to the consignee i.e. Op2. In the absence of any knowledge about the contents can be saddled with responsibility for the loss of consignment. Hence, the Op1 & 3 both are deficient in their service and we direct the Op1 & 3 to pay compensation amounting to Rs.3000/- towards loss of consignment and for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount will carry an interest @ 12% per annum till realization of the award amount by the complainant.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.