IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.111/09 (Filed on 10.08.2009) Between: Finny Abraham Samuel, Ettichuvattil House, Karikulam.P.O., Ranni – 689 682, Pathanamthitta District. (By Adv. Alex. P. Chacko) ..... Complainant And: 1. Professional Courier Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office 51/52/53 Sai Chambers, 1st Floor, Plot No.44, Sector 11, CBD, Belapore, Navi-Mumbai. 2. Professional Couriers, Kunnirikal Building, Ittiyappara, Ranni, Pathanamthitta District. (By Adv. M. Abdul Rahiman) ..... Opposite parties O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a marine engineer who was appointed as the 4th Engineer of the Univan Ship Management Ltd. Shipping Company vide their service contract No.KOC/025/08 dated 26.12.08. The period of contract was seven months and during the said period, the complainant was entitled to receive pay and allowances amounts to a total value of US $ 3552 (i.e. ` 1,77,600) per month. Before joining duty a minor mistake was noticed in the continuous Discharge certificate of the complainant and need a correction from the Shipping Master, Mumbai. Therefore, in order to rectify the same, the complainant sent his CDC to the Shipping Master, Govt. Shipping Office, Nan Bhavan, 10 R.K. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai through the 1st opposite party courier service on 19.1.09 vide receipt No.3336263. Even though the corrections in the CDC are usually carried out within one week there was no reply from the Shipping Master, the complainant made enquiries at the Shipping Master’s Office. But he was informed that the CDC was not delivered till date. 3. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party herein and requested to trace out the document, but the same could not be traced out. Thereafter the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party’s senior functionaries but in vein. An FIR was registered at Mumbai Police Station on 12.2.09. As a marine engineer the complainant could not sail without CDC. Due to the negligence of the opposite party company, the complainant caused mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences. Till now the complainant had lost salary of 3 months due to the deficiency in service from the opposite party. The only remedy available to the complainant is to get a new CDC from the Director General Shipping Govt. of India which involves frequent trips to Chennai and Mumbai and need of various official formalities and take two months time and the complainant had to spent an amount of ` 10,000 for this connection. On 17.2 09 the complainant had sent a registered notice to the 2nd opposite party for demanding compensation of ` 4 lakhs. But there is no response from the opposite parties. All the acts of the opposite parties amounts to a gross deficiency in service and which caused mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences. Hence he filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs. 4. The opposite parties have filed a common version raising the following contentions: The consignment sent through this opposite parties was reached at Bombay office. But it could not delivered to the reason that the article was misplaced. The article sent in the consignment was not mentioned on the cover or its value is not noted by the party. If a declaration of the party showing the value of the article was given at the time of booking of the article it would have been insured. If the article is a valuable document. It is the duty of the party to give a declaration showing the value of the document and to make a request for insure the article. The instructions to the customers in respect of booking articles in the courier service is published in the notice board of all branches. Anybody not following the guidelines and instructions are not entitled to get any claim more than ` 100 per article. A reported decision of the Hon’ble National Forum in a similar case that the terms of booking printed in the receipt are binding to the customers. The maximum compensation for the loss of a consignment sent in our courier service is ` 100 as per the terms and conditions agreed by the party with the courier service. The compensation claimed is exorbitant, baseless and is for illegal gain. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for in the complaint. The terms contained in the article booking receipt constitute a contract between parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable for payment of only ` 100 towards compensation. There is no deficiency in service from the part of them. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief and Costs? 6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 filed by the complainant. For the opposite parties, 2nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and there is no documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 7. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- The complainant’s case is that he sent his CDC to the Shipping Master, Govt. Shipping Office, Nan Bhavan, 10 R.K. Marg, Mumbai through the 1st opposite party courier service on January 19, 2009. The said article was not delivered to the addressee at Bombay, it was informed that the article was misplaced some where in Bombay office and it could not be traced out. Due to the negligence of opposite parties, the complainant had lost 3 months salary and other inconveniences. The complainant sent a registered notice to the 2nd opposite party to demanding a compensation of ` 4 lakhs as compensation. But they did not respond. For getting a new CDC, the complainant had to spent ` 10,000. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the service contract between the complainant and his employer. Ext.A3 is the certificate dated 12.2.09 issued by the duty officer MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai. Ext.A4 is the copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment card dated 18.2.09 for the receipt of Ext.A4 letter by the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A6 is the letter dated 4.1.09 from Univan India Shipping Company to the complainant. 9. The opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW1. 10. The opposite parties contended that the article sent in the consignment and its value was not mentioned. It is the duty of the party to give declaration showing the value of the document and to make a request for insure the article. The consignment sent by the complainant was reached their Bombay office. It could not be delivered due to that article was misplaced. The maximum compensation for the loss of a consignment sent in their courier service is ` 100 as per the terms and conditions agreed by the party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. 11. On going through the pleadings of the parties and the materials on records there is no dispute that the complainant had booked a consignment with 2nd opposite party. The complainant sent his CDC to the Shipping Master and Mumbai through the opposite parties for correcting the mistake noticed in the CDC. Usually the corrections are made out within one week. But there is no reply from the Shipping Master, the complainant enquired the matter to the Shipping Master’s Office. Then they informed that the CDC was not delivered till date. 12. The opposite parties have admitted the mistake on part of them in not delivering the consignment to the addressee. According to them, the consignment as per Ext.A1 receipt was reached at the opposite party’s Mumbai office. But it could not delivered to the addressee due to the article was misplaced somewhere in Mumbai office and could not be traced out. The opposite parties contended that a declaration of value of document for insuring the article was not given by the complainant. Further compensation for the loss of a consignment sent through them is `100 only as per terms and conditions of the receipt. 13. As per Ext.A2, the complainant had made a contract between the Univan Ship Management Ltd. and he would have get a salary of US $ 3300 per month. Ext.A6 shows that the Univan Indian Shipping Service Co. has directed the complainant to report the office after getting the CDC renewed to join vessel on 28.1.09. From Ext.A2 and Ext.A6 it can be clear that the complainant had made a service contract with the shipping company and he had to join on 28.1.09 after getting the CDC sent through the opposite parties. Due to the non-getting of CDC renewed he couldn’t join his duty which caused mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences to the complainant. 14. The courier company has to deliver the goods safely undamaged and without loss at the destination indicated by the consigner. It is the duty of the courier to take due care to deliver the article to the addressee. The courier company professes to make prompt delivery and receiving the charges for that. The opposite parties could not exonerate from their liability in case of damage or loss of the article sent through them. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant. The terms and conditions printed on the receipt are not binding to the complainant unless they are signed by him. In Ext.A1 consignment receipt, the terms and conditions mentioned in the overleaf was not signed by the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that the liability is limited to ` 100 could not be accepted. English translation of Ext.A3 shows that there is an FIR registered in the MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai about the misplace of the article sent by the complainant through the opposite party. There is an admitted fact, mistake on the part of opposite party in not delivering the article to the addressee sent by the complainant. In the circumstances, we found that there is a clear deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The opposite parties cannot absolved from their liability. They are liable to compensate the loss and inconveniences suffered by the complainant. 15. Considering the quantum of compensation, the complainant can avail a new CDC from Director General Shipping, Govt. of India after complying necessary formalities and he could have join this job or another. Moreover, the complainant had not adduced any cogent evidence to prove his actual loss due to the deficiency of service of opposite parties. In the circumstances, the compensation entitled to the complainant is limited to `25,000 with cost. Hence the complaint can be allowed with modifications. 16. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay ` 25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant along with a cost of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand only). The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest at the rate of 9% will be paid to the complainant till whole payment. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of February, 2011. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Prem kumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Finny Abraham Samuel. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Photocopy of the Service contract between the complainant and his employer. A3 : Certificate dated 12.2.09 issued by the duty officer MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai. A4 : Photocopy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. A5 : Acknowledgment card dated 18.2.09 for Ext.A4 letter. A6 : Letter dated 4.1.09 sent by Univan India Shipping Company to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Saji. T.K. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Finny Abraham Samuel, Ettichuvattil House, Karikulam.P.O., Ranni – 689 682, Pathanamthitta District. (2) Professional Courier Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office 51/52/53 Sai Chambers, 1st Floor, Plot No.44, Sector 11, CBD, Belapore, Navi-Mumbai. (3) Professional Couriers, Kunnirikal Building, Ittiyappara, Ranni, Pathanamthitta District. (4) The Stock File. | 
