This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ashish Verma  against the order dated 31.12.2014  passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Pandri, Raipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in  First Appeal No. 14/284.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had purchased certain items  in bulk like mobile sets, batteries and other related items which were packaged in five packets. Petitioner booked five packets with the respondent courier, DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. for delivering to himself.  The complainant received only three packets and two packets were not received. The respondents were giving  only false promises to search for items or to give the compensation.  When the respondents did not take any action, the petitioner/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum for a sum of Rs.8,54,450/- which was the value of the items lost in two packets.  The complaint was resisted by the respondents/OPs on the ground that no insurance was taken by the complainant nor he paid any extra charges to the OPs for getting the risk covered for the items and in these circumstances, as per the agreement conditions of dispatch and delivery, the OPs will only be liable to pay Rs.500/- for the item lost. Considering the evidence and submissions of both the parties, the District Forum partially allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay Rs.500/- alongwith 6% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment alongwith cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/-.

3.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum vide its order dated 31.12.2014.

4.       Hence the present revision petition .

5.       Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that  State Commission  and District Forum failed to see that the respondents have played fraud  with the petitioner  by issuing blank  receipt for transporting 5 cartons without giving break up of charges and premium for insurance as insured by their agent and as such in not fulfilling their insurance obligation. They have breached the contract and are liable for entire damages claimed by the petitioner in the complaint.  Learned counsel stated that  the State Commission as well as District Forum ought  to have seen that in the present case,  the respondents did not fill the booking receipt deliberately which  they had assured that they would pay premium for insurance and would mention the value of the goods but for saving money they breached their part of contract and they cannot take benefit of their own wrong.   Learned counsel further stated that the State Commission as well as District Forum committed manifest error of law by misconceiving the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of  Bharathi Knitting Company   Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 704 by limiting the damages to Rs.500/- only. Learned counsel further states that the facts and circumstances of  the present case are different from facts and circumstances of  the case of Bharathi Knitting Company (supra) and therefore the petitioner should have been awarded entire amount of damages as claimed by him in his complaint.

7.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP  made the same arguments which were made before the District Forum and State Commission. It was stated that the lost items were not insured nor the complainant had paid any additional amount for availing the scheme of risk coverage service of the OPs, hence the liability of  the OP was limited only to Rs.500/- and both the fora below have given correct finding as per the terms and conditions of the contract.  It was further argued by the learned counsel that both the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The decisions of the fora below are based on  the  correct appreciation of facts and the legal position, hence the facts cannot  be reassessed by this Commission in the revision petition. No legal point has been raised by the petitioner and hence,  the revision petition needs to be dismissed.

8.       I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and have examined the material on record.

9.       First of all, the OPs’ policy of liability does not distinguish between envelope containing a letter and a carton weighting heavily like carton of mobiles sets etc.  However, this depends on the policy of the OPs  and they have established that they are liable to pay only Rs.500/- as per that policy. Clearly, there is no insurance taken by  the complainant and as per the version of the OPs, even  the risk coverage policy of the OP was not taken by the complainant, though the complainant has stated that he never denied paying for the insurance and whatever money was asked,  he had paid the same and he was under the genuine impression that risk cover was already paid for. So far as the liability of the OPs with respect to loss or misplacement of the two packets is concerned, as per the terms  and conditions that is rightly assessed by both the fora below as Rs.500/- only. But the question of deficiency in service has not been considered  by any of  the fora below. The deficiency is not only in respect of loss of  the packets, however, the deficiency is also in the processing of the  receipt, dispatch and delivery of these packets. It is seen from the booking receipt/risk coverage consignment note that most of the columns are not filled by the OPs and it only mentions five packets.  On the right hand side of this note,  following is  mentioned:

           “ 100% money back guarantee.

          Use our Assured Second Business Day Delivery Service to

          place Far & Wide Across the Country”

10.     The OPs have not even returned the fee paid  to the OPs by  the complainant as per this promise when  the items were not delivered. This shows that the OPs are not even honoring their own commitment which is printed on this note. Moreover, it is seen  that in  this booking receipt/Risk Coverage Consignment Note, most of the columns are blank and no details of the packaged boxes  have been given and  the claim column relating to value of box has been  left blank. It is also not  clear that if risk coverage was not there  then why risk coverage note  was issued to the complainant. If this is just the booking receipt,  then why  the amount charged is not mentioned in this document.   It seems that the OPs have not filled up this form completely to avoid their liability in future. So it means that their intentions were not good and their employees may be involved in  the whole incident. Thus, this is clearly an unfair trade practice which has been adopted by the respondents/ OPs and even if this is due to mistake of some employees of the OPs company,  the company would be liable for the same on the principle of vicarious liability. Due to this unfair trade practice, the complainant has suffered and he has not been able to recover the cost of the consignment from the OPs. Thus, the complainant is required to be compensated for this unfair trade practice adopted by the respondents/OPs.  In  the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow a compensation of Rs.1 lakh to be paid by the respondents/OPs to the petitioner/complainant  for this unfair trade practice. The total cost of the misplaced consignments cannot be allowed as compensation because the complainant has also been negligent in not getting the form filled up by the OPs with all the details and he also did not check it at the time of booking the consignments. The value of cartons is not proved on the basis of these receipts/risk coverage note.

11.     Based on the above discussion,  the revision petition is partly allowed. While upholding the decision of the fora below, it is further ordered that respondents/OPs shall  pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation for the unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ 9% p.a.  shall be payable by the respondents/OPs from the date of this order till actual payment. The respondents/OPs are also directed to pay further cost of litigation as Rs.5,000/- over and above the cost of Rs.2,000/- awarded by  the District Forum.