F.A.No.794/2010  against C.C.No.84/2009,   Dist. Forum, Kadapa

Between:

1.The Manager, The Professional Courier,

   Gangamma Devalayam Street, Proddutur Branch,

   Kadapa.

2. The Manger, Professional  Courier,

    Tirupathi Branch,

    Chittoor District.

3. The Manager, Professional Courier,

   Sate Head Office,

    Secunderabad.                                              ….Appellants/

                                                                          Opp.parties

          And

C.Venkata Subba Rayudu,

S/o.C.Krishna Murthy Naidu,

2-48-A, Podadarthi Village and Post,

Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District.                     …Respondent/

                                                                         Complainant                                                                               

Counsel for the Appellants       : Mr.E.Phani Kumar    

Counsel for the Respondent     :   Party in person              

CORAM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

AND

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE  SEVENTH  DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order : (Per  Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

****

Aggrieved  by the order in C.C.No.84/2009  on the file of District  Forum,  Kadapa, opposite parties preferred this appeal.

The brief  facts as set out in the complaint are that the  complainant C.Venkata Subbarayudu  entrusted a cover  to   opp.party no.1 on 18.2.2009   to deliver  to the addressee at Tirupati, Chittoor Dist. and opp.party no.1 promised  that the cover will be delivered to the addressee   on the next day i.e. on 19.2.09  but against the said promise  the addressee received the cover beyond 20.2.09 and the same was refused as it was not in time.   The cover contained the application for appearing for the post graduate medical entrance test  under the Service Quota and on account of late delivery of cover  he lost a chance of appearing for the entrance test  and as a result of which his future   was affected.   Alleging deficiency in service the complainant approached   the Dist Forum  seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation.

The opp.parties filed counter   admitting  that the complainant booked   one cover with their Pulivendula  Branch  on 18.2.09 at late hours which was  received by opp.party no.1 on 19.2.2009   to deliver the same to the addressee at Tirupati  and the complainant  has not disclosed  that the said cover   should reach the addressee by 20.2.2009  and   the contents of  the said  cover.    The  opp.parties booked  the consignment subject to terms and conditions printed overleaf  of sender’s copy  of the consignment note  and it is  clearly  mentioned  in S.No.5 that in case  of  any loss or damage  their liability shall not exceed Rs.100/- and  vide Sl.No. 10 it is made clear that they will not be liable for any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any article sent through them and no officer of their  company is liable for any such loss of mis-delivery.   The cover booked by the complainant was received by opp.party no.2  on 20.2.2009  late hours    as the cover booked by the complainant  at Pulivendula on 18.2.2009   and received by opp.party no.1  on 19.2.09  to further dispatch to Tirupati. . Opp.parties submit that   the complainant in his complaint  failed  to disclose the  fact that he booked the cover at Pulivendula   and  that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Pulivendula  branch  and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

Based on the evidence adduced  i.e. Exs.A1 to A10 and pleadings put forward, the District Forum  allowed the complaint directing the opp.parties to pay Rs.25,000/-  towards  compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

It is the  case of the complainant that vide  Ex.A1 dt.18.2.2009 he entrusted a cover addressed to  S.V.Medical  College, Tirupati  to the opposite party who promised  to deliver  the said cover to the addressee on the very next day itself.   The said envelope  contained   an application for appearing for  Postgraduate Medical Entrance Test under the Service Quota and  addressee  received the cover beyond   the time limit on 20.2.2009  and ‘refused’ as it was not on time.  This was not even informed to the complainant and only when he went for hall ticket on 5.3.2009  to S.V.Medical College he was informed that his application did not reach in time and therefore was ‘refused’  and returned back to the complainant.  It is the  opposite parties’ case that the complainant never disclosed the contents of the cover and  never informed  them the urgency of the  delivery and  never stated that the cover should reach the addressee by 20.2.2009 and  every care is taken to  ensure the delivery within  24 to 72  hours but delays can occur  due to certain facts beyond their control.   The cover was picked at Pulivendula on  18.2.2009 and received by opposite party no.1 on 19.2.2009 to be dispatched to  the addressee at Tirupati. The complainant was in the  knowledge that the cover must reach the addressee by 5 pm.  on 20.2.2009 since it was the  last date.  We observe from the record that the cover clearly states  that it is an Application Form  for Post Graduate  Medical Entrance Test 2009-2010.   It is addressed to the Principal, Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Examination Wing, Tirupati, Chittoor. The “From Address” is also very clearly written.  The last date  is also stated on the envelope  as 20.2.2009. When the cover was returned stating that the last date was over, the act of the opposite party in   not even   returning  to the complainant nor  informing him  when it is clearly and specifically written on the envelope  that it is an ‘Application Form for Post Graduate  Medical Entrance Test’,  it is unjustified and construes as  deficiency in service.  Therefore the contention of the appellants/opp.parties that the complainant has not declared the contents when the envelope itself  contains in bold letters  that it is  an “APPLICATION FORM  FOR POST GRADUATE MEDICAL  ENTRANCE TEST 2009-10” is unsustainable.   It is only when the complainant had  gone on 5.3.2009 to S.V.Medical College, Tirupati to collect  his hall ticket, he was informed that his application  form was refused since it  came beyond time.  The learned counsel for the appellants/opp.parties contended that their liability is limited to Rs.100/-  as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the agreement.  We  rely on the judgement of National Commission  in  TATA CHEMICALS LTD. vs. SKYPAK COURIERS PVT LTD.  dt.14.12.2001  in which the National Commission observed that  that each case  depends upon the  whole  conspectus  of the matter  and  therefore  the opposite party could not limit  its liability  to  US $ 100  per consignment  as per the  term contained in the  consignment note.   In the instant case  the appellants/opp.parties not only   delivered the application form beyond time   but also did not even inform the complainant about returning of the cover nor even returned it  to the complainant.  Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum. 

In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER

                                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER

                                                                                        Dt. 7.10.2010