DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No : 383 OF 2011 Date of Institution : 24.08.2011 Date of Decision : 16.11.2011 Sukhwinder Singh s/o Sh. Avtar Singh, r/o H.No.230, Ward No.2, Mundi Kharar, District Mohali. ---Complainant V E R S U S1] DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized signatory, Branch Office, SCO No.2, Ground Floor, Near Capital Book Depot, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh – 160017. 2] DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor, Regd. Office at 8th Floor, Dheeraj Arma A.K. Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. ---Opposite PartiesBEFORE: SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Parmod Bali, Advocate for the Complainant. Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER [1] Briefly stated, the Complainant had sent a consignment to Australia to his brother, through OP-1 and paid Rs.2409/- for the same. The Complainant has stated that the consignment contained certain original documents. Unfortunately, the said documents were not delivered at the given address and despite efforts by the Complainant and his brother, at the office of the OPs in Australia, the documents remained untraced. The documents were urgently required for P.R. in Australia. The Complainant, thereafter, came to know from the OPs that the shipment was delivered to an incorrect consignee. The OPs instead of correcting their mistake to deliver the same to the correct consignee after collecting from the incorrect consignee, only offered to refund the freight charges of Rs.2409/- to the Complainant. After exchange of numerous correspondence between the parties, which did not fructify, the Complainant was constrained to file this complaint, alleging deficiency in service by the OPs, praying that the OPs be directed to deliver the consignment at the correct address, as well as pay Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation, along with costs of litigation. [2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. OP Nos.1 & 2 in their joint written statement have taken the preliminary objection that this court does not have any territorial jurisdiction, as the Complainant is a resident of Mohali and the shipment was also released from Mohali. OPs have further contended that no detail was given by the Complainant to the OPs with regard to the contents of the consignment. On merits, the OPs have admitted that they have sent the consignment of the Complainant, but as the contents of the consignment had not been declared, the OPs are not liable to compensate the Complainant for the claim made. As the packet was an international shipment, it had to pass through various clearances such as custom clearance, documentation, air-ways clearance etc., where loss of an odd consignment could happen in transit. OPs have further said that they are liable to pay $100 USD, being limited contractual liability and cannot give any compensation beyond that. Further, OPs have submitted that they had offered to refund the freight charges of Rs.2409/- to the Complainant, which was not accepted by him. Hence, pleading that there is no deficiency on their part, OPs No. 1 & 2 have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OPs have also filed written arguments, taking the same pleas, as above. [3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. [4] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of OPs. [5] The case of the Complainant is that he had sent a parcel for delivery to Australia through OP No.1, which was not delivered to the addressee. When he contacted the OPs, they offered to refund the courier charges paid by him for the shipment. Complainant has alleged that as the documents were very important and non-delivery of the same caused him immense loss, the OPs be made liable to adequately compensate him. [6] The OPs in their written arguments have submitted that they had offered to pay Rs.4421.50 ($100 USD), in addition to refund of freight charges of Rs.2409/-, totalling to Rs.6830.50, as full and final settlement of the claim. Further, they have submitted that there was no malafide intention to render deficient service to the Complainant. In support of their case, OPs have relied on M/s Blue Dart Courier Service & Anr. Versus M/s Modern Wool Limited, (1993) 3 CPJ 308 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as under:- “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14 (1) (d) – “Negligence” – “Compensation” – “Courier” – “Way bill” – A packet containing two licenses without declaration that these were important documents were lost by the Courier in the transit – Whether the Complainant was under obligation to declare complete description of the contents? – (Yes).” ………In the absence of complete description of the contents and in the light of the declaration that they were only ‘document’s, it is evident that the Courier was neither put on notice nor was it made aware that the packet contained documents of substantial commercial value……….” “15. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the appellant – Courier had no knowledge that the packet contained valuable REP licenses, (ii) that the Respondent – consignor had not declared the contents of the packet and as such it is difficult to assess the loss. In our opinion on the facts of this case it would be just, reasonable and fair to fix the quantum of liability for the loss of the packet due to negligence of Rs.1,000/- only this case. This appeal is accepted and the order of State Commission is set side. The liability of the appellant – Courier to compensate the Respondent – Consignor is fixed at Rs.1000/- only.” Reliance has also been placed by the OPs on Airpak International Pvt. Ltd. Versus K.P. Manu, 1997 (1) CPR 15 (NC), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:- “We find that there is substance in this appeal. If the documents which were consigned were of great value the consignee ought to have insured them. No such step was taken nor was their value even disclosed in the consignment note. We also failed to understand why the consignor could not have been asked to send duplicate copies of the lost documents when the loss came to light. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the State Commission is not justifiable. In the circumstances of this case, we hold that since there has been a deficiency in the service of the Courier, Rs.100/- as per the accepted terms of the Courier Service plus Rs.500/- as costs may be given to the Respondent.” [7] In the instant complaint also, the material placed on record by the Complainant do not give any proof of the contents or the importance of the consignment booked with the OPs. If the documents had been so valuable, the Complainant should have got them insured at the time of booking the shipment, besides making a proper declaration to the OPs. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble National Commission in both the judgments, referred to above, has held that the courier company would only be liable for the loss of the goods, if the value and description of the contents had been given in writing at the time of booking the article. In both the cases, a very minimal compensation had been granted to the Complainant. The OPs have contended that this Court does not have jurisdiction to try the matter. We do not agree with this contention, as the OPs themselves have admitted that the consignment was sent through them. The packet was booked by the Complainant with the Chandigarh Office. As such, they would be liable to compensate the Complainant for the loss caused to him. [8] In the instant case, the OPs have offered to pay Rs.6,830.50 which includes the courier charges and Indian currency equivalent to $100 USD, towards their contractual limited liability, to the Complainant. We feel that in the light of the authorities, referred to above, this amount is an adequate compensation for the Complainant, as the value of the articles have not been declared. [9] The Complainant is, thus, allowed with a direction to OPs to pay Rs.6,830.50/- to the Complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which they shall pay this amount, along with interest @12% per annum from the date of the order, till its realization. No costs. [10] Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 16.11.2011 Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
