By Shri. M.P.Chandrakumar, Member :    

          The case of the complainant is that he sent  a courier containing copper ornaments worth Rs.45,000/- through 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to his client at Mannar, Pathanamtitta, vide Receipt No. R - 05173945/8-10-11 for which, he paid Rs.190/- as courier charges. He had disclosed to the opposite parties that the packet contained copper ornaments worth Rs.45,000/-. The above said courier was insured with 3^rd opposite party  and hence 3^rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the petitioner’s claim, whenever a lose occurs to the complainant. According to the complainant, the above said courier never reached the addressee so far. The complainant made several enquiries about the courier to 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. On 13-11-11, the complainant informed to the 2^nd opposite party about the non-delivery of the courier yet. But of no remedy. According to the complainant, 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties have cheated the complainant, committed a breach of trust, failed to give proper service to the complainant and caused a loss of Rs.45,000/-. 3^rd opposite party is also liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss caused due to the missing of the courier packet. Even though the complainant sent a lawyer notice in this regard on 25-05-12 and 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties have received the notice, they never cared to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence the complaint filed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 45,000/-, being the cost of the copper ornaments, in addition to compensation and costs.

          2) In the version filed, 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties states admits that the complainant had booked the consignment No. R - 05173945 dated 8-10-11, but denies that the consignment contained copper ornaments, as alleged. According to them, the content of the said consignment was not declared to the opposite parties, at the time of entrusting the same with them for carriage. Similarly, neither the value of the consignment declared to them nor additional surcharge or consideration paid for the carriage of the alleged valuables, as per the terms and conditions of carriage. The booking of the consignment was done at Thrissur on payment of Rs.190/-, as freight charges alone for the consignment weighing approximately 3.295 kgs. The complainant has not paid any surcharge at the rate of 2 % of the declared value, so as to claim for any amounts over and above the limited liability of the carrier, in case of any alleged loss. As per the available records, the consignment was delivered to the consignee. No complaints regarding the non – delivery of the consignment was ever made by the complainant, until the filing of the complaint. No complaint / notice of loss / damage was ever issued to the opposite party carrier within 30 days period, as mandated under the  terms and conditions of the contract  or within the time period, as per the mandatory provisions of the  carriers act. Since the matter relates to 8-10-11, the opposite parties are at present, unable to locate any records in connection with the same. The complainant’s have no case or allegation that he has declared the contents of the consignment and paid additional charges, apart from freight charges. It is submitted that the consigner has to declare the value of the consignment and pay additional value for carriage and also for insurance, if they have to claim for its actual value. The above said declaration has to be made on the consignment leaf itself. Considering all the above, the complaint be dismissed with cost.

          3) The points for consideration is that

                   1. Is there any deficiency of service or unfair trade contract from  

                       the side of the opposite parties ?

                   2. If so, compensation and costs

          4) Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and exhibits P1 to P7 filed by the complainant. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and the opposite parties 1^st & 2^nd have filed counter proof affidavit. No documents have been submitted by the opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the  receipt No. R 05173945 dated 8-10-11; Ext. P2 is the visiting card of 1^st opposite party; Ext. P3 is the lawyer notice copy dated 8-05-12; Ext. P4 is the postal receipts; Ext. P5 is the notice returned from 2^nd opposite party; Ext. P6 is the  A/D card  of 1^st opposite party dated 26-05-12; Ext. P7 is the  A/D card of 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party has been set ex-parte.

          5) The Forum has gone through all documents relating to the case and has the following observations.

1.  It can be seen that  1^st & 2^nd opposite parties admits that they have received the consignment and collected its freight charges of Rs.190/- for the consignment weighing approximately 3.295 kgs.  In the version and proof affidavit, 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties have stated that they have delivered the parcel to the consignee. Having received the parcel, the opposite parties were to produce the documents to prove that they have delivered the item to the consignee, with the  details of the date of delivery, the person who received the same etc. But no documents to this effect produced and the matter proved.

2. In the version and the counter proof affidavit filed, 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties  states as follows “No complaint of loss on notice of loss was issued to the opposite party within 30 days’ time period as mandated under the terms and conditions of the contract or within the time period, as per the mandatory provisions of  the carriers act or the carriage  by road act ”. The opposite parties arguing so were bound to produce the relevant acts and prove the matter to the Forum. However, they have failed to do so.

          6) The Forum strongly believes that if the parcel had been delivered to the consignee, the opposite party would have produced the solid proof of delivery, before the Forum.  The fact that the proof has not been produced amounts to admission of the fact that the parcel has not been delivered to the consignee. As such, the Forum is compelled to believe the words of the complainant. However, the complainant has not produced any proof to prove the weight and the value of the ornaments in the parcel.

          In the result, the complaint is partially allowed. The opposite parties 1^st  & 2^nd are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant, within a month of the receipt of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 20^th day of January 2018.