PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is a case at alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party as it did not deliver the parcel at the destination i.e. in U.S.A.
The facts of the case are that, the Complainant has booked a parcel with Opposite Party, which is to be delivered in U.S..A. containing some articles like laptop, computer bag, bank form, admission form duly signed, two CD’s of family photos and cosmetic cream. The parcel was booked on 26/07/07 and the Opposite Party has assured that it would be delivered to the consignee within 24 hrs. The consignee was the Complainant’s daughter at Texas 7610, U.S.A., 415, S-West Street # 205, Arlington, Texas. For this service the Opposite Party has issued a consignment note to the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party has not delivered the said parcel to the Complainant’s daughter at Texas, U.S.A. till date.
2) After repeated requests by the Complainant, Opposite Party informed the Complainant that, the parcel had been routed through D.H.L. Courier at U.S.A. Further it is also stated in the complaint that the Opposite Party’s employee replied that the parcel was delivered on 08/08/2005 and further advised that their D.H.L. office be verified for delivery.
3) The Complainant further states that, his daughter in U.S.A. learnt on 26/8/20058 that the parcel had been delivered to some other person. The parcel was actually dispatched from India on 05/08/2008. The Complainant further alleged that DHL has issued the copy of the proof of delivery to the Opposite Party through fax. Then the Opposite Party after repeated requests forwarded the same fax dtd.29/08/05 showing that the parcel was received and signed by some Vara. The Complainant has attached a xerox copy of fax dtd.29/08/2005.
4) The Complainant thereafter alleged that, the signatures of the receiver of the said parcel was forged and it seems to be done by Opposite Party or Opposite Party’s associate DHL.
5) The Complainant therefore, lastly alleged that the Opposite Party did not deliver the parcel to the Complainant’s daughter, at Texax, in U.S.A. and thereby guilty of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
6) The Complainant prayed for return of the parcel accepted by the Opposite Party on 26/07/2005. He has also prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- compensation for mental agony embarrassment, trauma, stress, anxiety, etc. It is also prayed for Rs.20,000/- towards expenses incurred by the Complainant and Rs.20,000/- as cost of this complaint.
7) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents –
a) Consignment note dtd.26/07/2005.
b) Email by the Complainant’s daughter dtd.17/08/05.
c) Email by the Opposite Party.
d) Email by the Opposite Party.
e) Letter by the Complainant dtd.3/09/2005.
f) Letter by the Complainant dtd.19/09/2005.
g) Letter by the Complainant dtd.04/02/2006.
h) Letter by the Complainant dtd.20/03/2006.
i) Letter by the Opposite Party dtd.20/03/2006.
j) Letter by the Complainant dtd.25/03/2006.
k) Notice issued by Complainant dtd.05/05/2006.
l) Fax by Opposite Party dtd.29/04/2006.
m) Fax by Opposite Party regarding proof of delivery dtd.29/08/05.
8) The Complainant also filed the affidavit in support of the complaint. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party appeared through its Ld.Advocate. the Opposite Party filed its written statement wherein the Opposite Party has denied almost all the allegations against it and further stated that the Complainant suppressed some important facts such as, the day on which the parcel was handed over to the Opposite Party was extra ordinary day in the Mumbai History in respect of the heavy downpour of rainfall. At this period of time the life of Mumbai had been badly affected and about a week was required to come to its normal. Even when normalcy returned, cargo had accumulated for dispatch at airport. Hence, there were delays in clearing the piled up cargo.
9) The Opposite Party has further alleged that the Complainant had suppressed the above mentioned situation in his complaint. The Complainant also displayed the front page of the consignment note but suppressed the rear side of the said consignment note which display the terms and conditions of the contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground of suppressing the material facts. Even the Complainant has not filed the terms and conditions printed on the reverse of the consignment note. The Opposite Party has mentioned that it has attached these terms and conditions of the contract. But actually when we thoroughly scrutinized the papers, there are no such terms and conditions attached to the written statement of the Opposite Party. It is further stated in the written statement that one of the terms states “The Opposite Party and Complainant have contracted that in case of loss of consignment, a fix amount of would be payable.”
10) The Opposite Party further averred that the consignment was not lost. Even if it is presumed that it was lost, then the claim would be restricted to the contracted amount only as set out in the said note.
11) The Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant had booked a consignment to be delivered in U.S.A. However, it is not known to it whether the consignment contained Laptop, computer bag, etc. as stated in the complaint. The space of contents has been left blank. Therefore, it is alleged by the Opposite Party that it is not open to the Complainant to claim that package contained the above said articles mentioned in his complaint. The Opposite Party also clarified that, the delivery of the parcel in 24 hrs. is possible in normal circumstances but the same speed of delivery is not possible under the situation which was prevailing on 26/07/2005 and onwards. The Opposite Party further stated that the parcel in question was ultimately delivered to the consignee on 08/08/2005 under a proper signature.
12) Regarding the forged signature of the consignee, the Opposite Party submits that this statement of the Complainant alleging forged signature of the consignee is a bare statement not supported by any evidence. Finally Opposite Party states that there is no deficiency in service rendered by it. It also denied that it had adopted any unfair trade practice.
13) Thereafter the Complainant filed the attested statement of Ms.Shraddha Vora. The same corroborates the complaint. He also submitted the affidavit in evidence and written argument which also corroborate the complaint. The Opposite Party also submitted his written argument wherein the facts and circumstances mentioned in the written statement are reiterated by the Opposite Party.
14) We perused the above said documents and our findings are as follows –
It is the fact that the Complainant had entrusted the parcel to the Opposite Party as courier carrier. The same parcel was to be delivered in Texas, U.S.A. to the daughter of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has issued a consignment note dtd.26/07/05 in this respect. As per the promise, the said consignment was to be delivered to the Complainant’s daughter at the most on 27/07/2005. The Complainant’s daughter has averred in her affidavit that she has not received the parcel containing lap top, forms, etc. till date. However, it is learnt from the counterpart of the Opposite Party (DHL) that the said parcel has been delivered on 08/08/05. She has also averred that her signature has been forged as receiver. At the same time the Opposite Party averred in the written statement that it’s counter part at U.S.A.(D.H.L) has delivered the parcel to Complainant’s daughter on 08/08/05. In this respect we carefully examined the address given by the Complainant on the consignment note which is as follows -
“Miss Shradha K.Vora,
41 S West, Street,
# 205 Arlington, 76010 Texas USA
Tel- 817 – 8081160”
When we examined the Delivery signature detail note produced by the Opposite Party, we find the receivers details as below -
“Receiver Information”
Shradha K. Vora
Arlington, Tx 76010
United States
When these two address were carefully examined one can fined that the latter is insufficient. The particulars like 415 S West Street # 205 are missing. And because of these insufficient particulars the parcel might have delivered to some wrong person. We also examined the signature of the receiver on delivery signature detail note and signature of Miss Shraddha Kiran Vora on her affidavit. There is an apparent difference in the signatures. From these documents it is clear that the parcel in question was delivered to some other person than Miss Shraddha K. Vora.
15) It is true that there was s situation in Mumbai on 26/07/05 due to heavy rains, that the parcels would have been delayed and it reached at U.S.A. on 08/08/05 i.e. after 12 to 13 days but the counter part of the Opposite Party i.e. DHL had miserably failed to deliver the same to the right person. Even on the consignment note the Complainant has given the contact number as 817-8081160 but it appears that the Opposite Party’s counterpart has not taken any pain to confirm on this phone also locate the correct receiver.
16) It has been averred by the Opposite Party that one of the terms of the contract between the Complainant and stipulates that “In case of loss of consignment, a fix amount of …………… would be payable. The Opposite Party has not produced this stipulation, nor has mentioned the amount as to how much to be paid in case of loss. Therefore in our view, Opposite Party can not take advantage of such stipulation which is not produced before the Forum.
17) It is also true that the consignment does not describe the ‘contents’ of the consignment (parcel) but it is true that the consignment bearing No.20798476 dtd.26/07/05 did not reach to the consignee i.e. Miss Shraddha K.Vora, 415, S West Street, # 205, Arlington, Texas 79610 U.S.A.. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as it did not hand over the parcel to the right person mentioned on the consignment note. Hence, the Opposite Party is liable for the compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment and inconvenience to the Complainant as well as the daughter of the Complainant, Miss Shraddha K. Vora at Texas, U.S.A. However, the compensation prayed by the complainant is exorbitant. Therefore, we consider Rs.25,000/- would be the proper compensation for the mental agony, physical hardships and inconvenience caused to the Complainant and his daughter because of deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party. An amount of Rs.5,000/- would be justifiable for the cost of this complaint. The space in the rectangle, in consignment note, against contents, has been left blank. Therefore, the contents of this parcel cannot be evaluated and assessed. Therefore, it will not be proper to award any compensation against the things sent by the Complainant. Therefore, we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.323/2006 is partly allowed.
ii.The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant for
deficiency in service on Opposite Party’s part by not delivering the parcel (Consignment No.20798676) to Miss
Shraddha K. Vora at the given address in U.S.A. and thereby causing the Complainant and his daughter mental
agony, physical harassment and inconvenience.
iii.Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards the cost
of this complaint.
iv.Opposite Parties is directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
v. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
