The appeal has been directed against the judgement and order passed by the District Forum on 12.08.05 by the appellant herein in C.D Case No.10 of 2004.

2.                    The respondent herein files an application U/s 12 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 contending that on 20.03.2004 2 packets weighing about 1 Kg and another ½ Kg were handed over to the appellant for dispatching to Campbell Bay and Katchal respectively without mentioning any particular on the cover of the packets. The Complainant alleges that the packets contain some election materials which did not reach the parties to those were sent for. The parties suffered much due to the non delivery of the articles and the case was field.

3.                  The respondent contended what the complainant did not disclose the nature of the contents of the packets. At the relevant time, the appellant contents of the packets. At the relevant time, the appellant contends there was no passenger Ship service for transportation of Cargo from Port Blair to inter Islands at the relevant time and as such the respondent delivered both the packets to a private Cargo Vessels M.V Tarakiran .It is further stated by the appellant that he delivered the packets consigned to Katachal.The receipt of such delivery has field and the same has not been disputed. The second packets consigned to Campbell Bay could not be delivered as the same was misplaced and lost by the cargo vessel. According to the appellant the respondent is entitled to a compensation of not more than Rs.100/- as per the terms of contract specifically mentioned in the receipt.

4.            After having gone through the evidence Ld. District Forum came to the conclusion that the appellant impliedly and expressly admitted its liability for non-delivery of consignment at Campbell Bay. It further held,”Admittedly,the consignment contained election material like instruction letter and election propaganda materials for election work of their party candidate and according to the complainant, due to non-delivery of the consignment at Campbell Bay, their party and party candidate have been prejudiced both in the election propaganda and the election result”. On this finding the Ld.Forum below awarded Rs 5000/- as compensation in addition to Rs 100/- stipulated in the receipt against the appellant.

5.           Being aggrieved the appellant has come up with this appeal. The Ld. Lawyer for the appellant did not express any grievance against the award of Rs 100/- stipulated in the receipt itself. But he has argued that when the contents were not mentioned on the packets weighing not more than 1 Kg the imposition of cost of Rs.5000/- upon the appellant by the forum below was unusually harsh. According to him the appellant by the forum below was unusually harsh. According to him the respondent should not be accosted with the fine of not more than Rs.100/- as per terms stipulated in the receipt. The respondent herein arguing the case himself submits that the liability of the respondent does not end with dispatching the packets in a Cargo vessel and thereafter remaining silent for one month. He adds that packets which might have contained valuable documents, the Ld.Forum below rightly imposed the compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and this Commission should not interfere with such order.

6.           After having heard the submission of both the parties we are of the opinion that the appellant acting as substituted agent of the Post Office cannot afford itself to be so casual in its work. After having dispatched the article in a private vessel it did not take any information for one month about the arrival of the packets to the destination. It cannot slumber over its liability to see whether the dispatched articles reached the destination. The appellant must have the respondent to supply proper information about the arrival of the article to its destination. We are convinced that awarding a fine of Rs.100/- as compensation will never act as a deterrent to such indifferent attitude towards the loss of injury of its customers. The appellant has charged Rs.150/- for delivery of the consignment to Campbell Bay which is mentioned as services charge and that charges is higher than the agreed cost of Rs.100/- as per declaration. On this round additional compensation payable by the appellant is called for. The Ld. Lawyer for the appellant has argued that when the nature of the articles have not been mentioned on the packets the courier’s liability will be similar with the loss of packet of unknown contents and the liability must be limited to Rs 100/- .In support of his argument he cites a decision reported in Skypark Courier Pr.No. 0992(II)CPR 137.Where it was held “It is obligatory on the part of the consignor to have disclosed the contents of the packet so that it could have got insured if necessary and where the consignor had sent the documents like passport, visa, air travel ticket etc through the courier without disclosing the contents of the packets, the courier’s  liability will be limited to the loss of a packet of unknown contents as such instead of the loss of valuable documents like passport, visa, air travel ticket etc., and whose loss prevented him from taking up a new lucrative job in time and accordingly the quantum of loss payable was assessed at Rs 100/- in a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act  ”.But in the case before us we have found that the appellant courier did not inform about the fate of the consignment for a period of one month thereby putting the consumer to much harressment.We  are of the opinion that this negligent and indifferent attitude of the courier is not compensable to Rs 100/- .Hence the Ld. Forum below was justified in passing an order of compensation but we are inclined to reduce the amount of compensation of Rs 2,500/- as exact nature of the articles were not declared before the appellant in writing. Accordingly the order passed by the Ld. Forum below is upheld subject to the fact that the amount of compensation beside Rs 100/- will stand reduced to Rs 2,500/- .No cost of appeal. The appeal is thus allowed in part without cost.