For the Appellant in FA NO.424/09 & : Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent No.1 in FA No.33/10 For the Appellant in FA NO.33/10 & : Mr. Rakesh Malhotra and Respondent No.1 & 2 in FA No.424/09 Mr. Sansar Kumar, Advocate Dated, the 25th day of August, 2010

ORDER

JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

Both these appeals arise from a common order dated 25.09.09 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint no.15/07. The complaint before the State Commission was filed alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in having not delivered the consignment of certain specimens and photographs ..3.. which the complainant had booked for carriage and delivery to the complainant at Cape Town in South Africa where an International Trade Fair was scheduled to be organized. It was not disputed that the consignment valued at Rs.1,09,170/- could not be delivered to the complainant and the complainant had to suffer on that account as their representatives had travelled to Cape Town to participate in the said International Trade Fair. Though the complainant had claimed compensation of more than Rs.38 lakh but the State Commission on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances, evidence and the material produced on record, partly allowed the complaint in the following manner:- “(i) The opposite party no. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,09,170/-, the value of the parcel along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made. (ii) The opposite party no. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.38,029/- as amount paid for the shipment to opposite party no.3 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made and further to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as amount of compensation for loss of profit in business and reputation and mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. ..4.. (iii) It is further made clear that liability of opposite party no.1,2 & 3 would be joint and severe one in making the payment as ordered by this Commission. (iv) It is further made clear that if the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- are not paid within two months from today, the complainant would be entitled to get interest on that amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from today.” 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 429/09 for upgradation of the compensation so awarded by the State Commission while the opposite party No.1, DHL Worldwide Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. has filed the First Appeal No.33/10 for setting aside the impugned order. In First Appeal No. 33/10 filed by the DHL Worldwide Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., limited notice was issued to the respondent no.1/complainant on the question as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, the State Commission could not have awarded interest on the payable amount towards the value of the consignment and the freight charges etc. while awarding the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. We have heard Mr. Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, learned counsel for the DHL ..5.. Worldwide Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. and have considered their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the DHL Worldwide Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. submits that the State Commission has erred in awarding the interest as well as the compensation on the amount which they were asked to pay to the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the interest is not commensurate with the kind of loss and injury suffered by the appellant due to the non-delivery of the consignment for which the officers of the complainant had travelled to Cape Town, South Africa. His main grievance is that the opposite parties have given vague reply in regard to the circumstances in which the consignment could not be delivered to the complainant at Cape Town and failed to disclose the precise reason why the delivery could not be effected. He also submits that having regard to the nature and unique value of the consignment the respondents should be called upon to restore the consignment to the complainant, besides paying the damages. 4. Having considered the matter in its entirety and the fact that the consignment booked by the complainant remained undelivered, the ..6.. order of the State Commission so far it directs to the opposite parties to pay value of the consignment and the freight charges of Rs.38,029/- is eminently justified. However, we feel that the State Commission was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- as well as interest @ 9% p.a on the amount to be paid w.e.f. date of filing of complaint till payment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that once the State Commission has decided to award compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to non-delivery of the consignment at Cape Town, there was no case of awarding interest on the payable amount. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the complainant states that the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is more beneficial to the complainant as compared to the interest awarded by the State Commission. 5. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of in the manner that the order passed by the State Commission shall stand modified to the extent that the direction with regard to payment of interest @ 9% p.a. shall stand deleted but all and the other stipulations ..7.. contained in the operative part of the order shall remain unaltered. Since the amounts of Rs.1,09,170/-, Rs.38,029/- and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation were not paid within the stipulated period of two months from the date of impugned order, we direct the DHL Worldwide Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. to pay the said amounts with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 1.12.09, i.e. after two months from the date of impugned order till realization. Costs in these proceedings are made easy.