KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.560/11

JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

1.      Professional Courier Pvt.Ltd,

Regd Office 51/52/53 Sai Chambers,

1^st Floor, Plot No.44, Sector II, CHD,

Belapore, Navi-Mumbai.

2.      Professional Couriers,                              --  APPELLANTS

Kunnirikal Buildings,

Ittutaooara, Ranni,

Pathanamthitta District.

   (By Adv.T.M.Abdul Lathief)

                   Vs.

Finny Abraham Samuel,

Ettichuvattil House,                                             --  RESPONDENT

Karikulam.P.O, Ranni – 689 682

Pathanamthitta District.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/couriers in CC.111/09 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.  The appellants are under orders to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/- with interest at 9%.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he was appointed as 4^th Engineer in the Univan Ship Management Ltd. vide their  service contract dated  26.12.08 for a period of 7 months for a salary of US $ 3552 ( Rs.1,77,600/-) per month.  A minor mistake was noticed in the Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC)   which required correction from Shipping Master, Mumbai.   For the same he sent his CDC to Shipping   Master, Government Shipping Office, Nan Bavan, 10 R.K. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai  through the opposite party/Courier service on 19.1.09 vide receipt No.3336263.  Usually the corrections are carried out within one week.   As no reply was received he contacted the Shipping Master’s Office and found that the CDC was not delivered.  The complainant approached the opposite parties  who could not trace out the same.  An FIR was registered at Mumbai Police Station on 12.2.09.  The complainant could not sail without CDC.  He lost salary of 3 months.  He had to make frequent trips to Chennai and Mumbai to get a new CDC from the Director General Shipping Government of India and incurred a sum of Rs.10,000/-.  He has claimed Rs.4 lakhs as compensation.

          3. In the version, it is contended that the document was misplaced.  It is pointed out that the party has not made any declaration relating to the value of the article at the time of booking.  He could have insured the same.  There was the required instructions published in the notice board of the office.   Only a sum of Rs.100/- is the maximum compensation that can be claimed in case of loss of consignment as per the terms printed in the receipt.

          4. Evidence adduced consisted the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A6.

          5. The Forum has found that there is   nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant    with respect to the fact that he had sent the CDC through the opposite party/courier and that he had a contract with the  particular Shipping Company with a salary of US $ 552 per month and he was directed to report for duty on 28.1.09.   The complainant had produced the relevant documents in this regard.  The complainant has also produced the copy of the FIR lodged at a Mumbai Police Station.  It is admitted that the article was misplaced.  The Forum has rightly held that the term printed in the receipt that the maximum compensation can only be Rs.100/- is not binding on the complainant as there is no concluded contract to the above effect.  We find that the Forum  has only  ordered to pay Rs.25,000/-  with interest as compensation.  Evidently, the complainant has lost more than Rs.3 lakh as salary and he had to incur considerable expenditure and undertake journeys to obtain a fresh CDC.   In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal and the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU  --  PRESIDENT