By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:
The gist of the case is as follows. The Complainant entrusted a consignment with the Opposite Party on 8.12.2007 to be delivered at the Narikkuni branch. The consignment contained cheques stamp papers and other valuable documents. The consignment was a cover which contained cheques for the amounts to be given to the bidders of the chitt and also contained the salary report of the staff. The Opposite Party was convinced of the contents and value of the consignment and the Opposite Party assured to take care and deliver it the next day itself.
2. Even after 10 days the consignment was not delivered at the Narikuni branch. On enquiry Opposite Party admitted that the consignment was lost. Because of the non delivery of the consignment the Complainant could not make payment to the subscribers of chitt in time. The subscribers made disturbance at the Complainant's enterprise and the Complainant was made to pay additional amount as interest etc. Because of the delay in delivery of salary report, salary of the staff also was delayed. The non delivery of the consignment caused defame and hardship to the Complainant firm. Hence the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and other costs.
3. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version. They stated that usually they do not take consignment of high value. If the consignment contains valuable things, they used to advice the parties to insure that. The parties are to make declaration of the value of the consignment in the consignment note itself at the time of booking. The Complainant has not insured the consignment and he has not made any declaration about the value and type of records contained in the parcel. The envelop was booked as if that was an ordinary record for a fee of Rs.5/- only. It is true that it was lost at the Kunnamangalam branch of the Opposite Party and this was intimated to the Complainant on 18.12.2007. It is not true that the Complainant has suffered loss and hardship due to the misplacement of consignment. The Complainant is making use of a bonafide mistake to raise undue claims. As per the terms and conditions shown in the consignment note, the liability of Opposite Party is limited up to Rs.100/- only. Hence the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.
4. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 and A2 on the side of the Complainant. Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 and documents was marked as Ext.B1 on the side of the Opposite Party. 5. The matters to be decided are as follows. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party ? 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief.
6. Point No.1. It is admitted that the consignment was lost at the hands of the Opposite Party.
OPW1 admits that the Opposite Party came to know about the loss of consignment only on enquiry by the complainant after 10 days. It shows that the Opposite Party is not taking reasonable vigilance and care against any chance for loss of consignment. Opposite Party could not explain what measures are taken by them to ensure the safe dealing of consignment entrusted to them. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. Point No.2. The Complainant does not disclose the particulars of the documents contained in the consignment. No steps were seen taken against any misuse of the lost documents. No other witness were examined to show the hardship suffered by them. However the contention of Opposite Party that their liability is limited to an extent of Rs.100/- only is not acceptable.
8. In this context Honourable National Commission has held in Blaze Flash Courier (P) Ltd v/s Rohit J. Poladiya and another that consignment note cannot limit the courier's liability as it was neither signed by the Complainant nor his specific attention had been drawn to it (2008 CTJ NCDRC Page. 354). Hence ordinary liability arising from an act of deficiency in service arise here. In this case, the Complainant being a regular customer of the Opposite Party had not insured the consignment and have contributed towards its loss. For the above said reasons, the Complainant is entitled for a less compensation than he prayed for.
Hence the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) plus Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay interest on the ordered amount at the rate of 10% from the date of the order till payment.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29th day of June 2009.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER I : Sd/-
MEMBER II : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witnesses for the Complainant : PW1 Achuthan Nambiar Complainant. Witnesses for the Opposite Party : OPW1. Manoj. P. Manager, Professional Courier. Exhibits for the Complainant : A1. Extract from the minutes of the Proceedings of the Board of Directors Meeting. dt. 1.07.2008
A2. Letter dt.18.12.2007. Exhibits for the Opposite Party : B1. Courier receipt B2. Notice dt. 21.12.2007 B3. Lawyer notice dt. 28.12.2007.
......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW | | 
