By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the case complainant is as follows:<br /> On 1-7-02 the husband of the complainant availed services of the opposite parties to send a consignment cover from Mettur Dam, to complainant at Malappuram. That the cover contained three rolls of film negatives. The same was sent ti take prints since a relative was having a color lab. The film rolls were snap shots of the 1st birthday celebrations of her only child she had while at Mettur.; The cover was delivered to her on 3-7-2002; but the contents were found to be missing. The film rolls are neither recovered nor delivered to her till date. Complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and claims Rs.1 lakh as compensation along with other expenses.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties have filed separate versions. Opposite parties admit the consignment sent on 1-7-2002. Opposite party No.1 contends as per rules of consignment contract valuables, cash etc. should not be send. If lost opposite parties would not be responsible. Opposite party No.1 denies that the cover contained valuable negatives and alleges that the petition is malicious and purposeful for exhorting money. Opposite party No.2 has filed version that both opposite parties are separate entities. It is wrong to treat them as one and the same regarding liability. That the consignment was sent from establishment of opposite party No.1 and the conditions of their establishment applies to the contract. The consignor has not6 declared the value of the contents. The cover has been delivered to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service.<br /> <br /> 3. Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on the part of opposite parties. The points that arise for consideration are (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. (ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. Point t (i) According to the complainant her husband sent her three rolls of film negatives in a cover from Mettur Dam through opposite parties. Ext.A1 is the consignment note issued by opposite party No.1. Both sides admit delivery of the cover. Complainant alleges that the cover was delivered damaged and the film rolls were missing. She explains that these film rolls are precious and valuable to her because they are snapshots of her child's first birthday. Ext.A2 is the cover which was sent vide Ext.A1 consignment note. Ext.A2 bears name, address and phone number of complainant. On the top it is written “Confidential – personal delivery alone” with double underlines. This goes to show that the cover did contain something important and personal to the consignor as well as consignee. So the case of the complainant that contents of the cover were film rolls is believable. Ext.A1 is dated 1-7-2002. It is averred that on 2-7-2002 the husband of the complainant (consignor) telephoned her and intimated that the film negatives are sent. So the complainant know the contents of the consignment prior to taking delivery and was waiting for it. The cover was delivered to her on 3-7-2002. On the appearance of the cover itself complainant realised that the film rolls were not inside it. She directed the delivery boy to wait and opened it in his presence. There was only a letter inside and the film rolls were missing. She asked the delivery boy to hand over the POD (Proof Of Delivery) so that she could endorse upon it that the contents are missing. The delivery boy told her that he had nothing but the cover. Ext.A2 is a thick brown cover. On examination we find the edges are opened deftly with some sharp object. On 23-7-2002 complainant caused a lawyer notice to opposite parties simultaneously by registered post and courier service. Ext.A3 is the notice sent by registered post. Ext.A4 series are the consignment notes of sending notice by courier. Ext.A5 is the office copy of the notice. Complainant has put forward a consistant case regarding the missing of the contents of the cover. Further opposite parties have failed to produce the POD. No reply was sent to Ext.A5 notice.<br /> <br /> 5. Opposite parties have vehemently denied that the cover contained valuable film rolls. The version submitted by opposite party No.1 is that Rule 3 of courier service prohibits sending valuable articles. If the complainant wanted to send any such item, it should be marked as 'SAMPLE' on the cover and extra tariff will be collected for extra case. That Ext.A1 consignment was sent by paying regular tariff only. Opposite parties have not produced any evidence in support of these contentions regarding rules of courier service. No rules are seen printed on the front side or reverse side of Ext.A1 consignment note. There is no column to enter the description of the articles and counsel for complainant submitted that for this reason the contents were not described in Ext.A1. Further in Ext.A1 it is printed “Received in good condition” - This proves that Ext.A2 cover was in good condition when entrusted to opposite party No.1. Opposite parties have not specifically denied the cover was delivered in damages condition. Mr.M.K.Alavi who appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 vehemently argued that if the contents of the cover were lost complainant ought to have informed the police. It is for the police to find out how it was lost and who are the culprits. This submission is unacceptable. The cover was entrusted for delivery to opposite parties and it can be presumed that the cover was handled only by persons known to opposite parties. Opposite parties have failed to take reasonable case of the cover entrusted to them. This amounts to deficiency of service.<br /> <br /> 6. Point(ii) Complainant is legally entitled to be compensated for the loss sustained. She claims one lakh as compensation for deficiency of service, Rs.5000/- for travel and telephone expenses, Rs.375/- as costs of film rolls, and Rs.500/- for legal notices. It was submitted on behalf of opposite parties that liability if any is limited to Rs.100/-, <br /> <br /> as per the conditions printed on the reverse side of Ext.A1. As already discussed the reverse side of Ext.A1 is blank. Further Ext.A1 does not bear the signature of the consignor. Opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence to show that their liability is limited. According to complainant film negatives were snapshots of the 1st birthday of her child. Since the negatives are lost not even a single print is available. Complainant further fears the chance of negatives being misused if it reaches wrong hands. For the above reasons we are of the view that awarding Rs.20000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties are ordered jointly and severally to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 15th day of October, 2007.<br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5<br /> Ext.A1 : Consignment note issued by Opposite party No.1.<br /> Ext.A2 : Cover contains Ext.A1 consignment note.<br /> Ext.A3 : Notice sent by registered post to opposite party No.1<br /> Ext.A4 series : Consignment notes of sending notice by courier.<br /> Ext.A5 : Office copy of the notice. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />