West Bengal

StateCommission

A/703/2016

Rashmi Thacker - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Tarunjyoti Banerjee, Samim Ahmed

21 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/703/2016
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/06/2016 in Case No. CC/612/2014 of District North 24 Parganas)
 
1. Rashmi Thacker
D/o Kantilal O Vasanti, 5A/1A, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata - 700 071.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.
404-405, VIP Road, Raghunathpur DTDC Bhawan, Zonal Office East VIP Road, Raghunathpur, Baguiati, Kolkata - 700 059, W.B.
2. The Managing Director, DTDC House
3, Victoria Road, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560 047.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Mr. Tarunjyoti Banerjee, Samim Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Diganta Das., Advocate
Dated : 21 Aug 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Both these Appeals arise out of the same Order dated 30-06-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 612/2014 whereof the complaint has been allowed in part.  Feeling aggrieved by such order, both sides has preferred their respective Appeals.

Facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant booked products worth Rs. 60,676/- with the OP Courier Company on 04-03-2014 for delivering the same to Guwahati.  However, the parcel did not reach its destination as the OPs misplaced the same.  Hence, the complaint.

By filing a WV, it is contended by the OPs that at the time of booking, the booking person requested the Complainant to book those goods in a secure pack as those were valuable goods, but the Complainant booked the same on ‘D’ series.  It is the further case of the Complainant that the consignment was booked by Rashmi Enterprise which is a Private Company and as such, it cannot be a consumer.  Also, the goods were meant for another Private company.  Thus, it is clear that the consignment was sent purely for commercial purpose.  Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

According to DTDC Courier, the consignment was booked by Rashmi Enterprise, which is a Private Company and also the material was sent to another Private Company situated in Guwahati.  Therefore, it is clear that the consignment was sent for commercial purpose.  According to the DTDC Courier, for this very reason, the instant complaint is not maintainable.

There is nothing to show that M/s Rashmi Enterprise is either a Limited or Private Ltd. Company.  Therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the consignment was indeed booked for commercial purpose, it is to be kept in mind that mere commercial nature of a transaction does not outrightly exiles the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to adjudicate a consumer dispute. The Act clearly stipulates that “commercial purpose” does not include services availed by a person exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  The name of the organization, Rashmi Enterprise itself is suggestive of the fact that it is a Proprietorship concern.  Therefore, to my mind, it leaves no scope for any kind of speculation that the instant dispute has rightly been filed before the Ld. District Forum by the Complainant.  Objection of the OP Courier does not hold any water. The citations relied upon by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP Courier has got no bearing in the present context given that the facts and circumstances of the present case is totally different.

It is further argued by the OP Courier that no Court or Tribunal Court can go into or re-write the terms of a valid and enforceable agreement.  Therefore, even if it is held liable for any sort of deficiency in service, compensation amount cannot go beyond what is stipulated in the Consignment Note. 

It is more often than not seen that in order to avoid computable liability for negligent services, Courier Companies draft highly unfair, one-sided terms and conditions.  It is done for the ostensible purpose of restricting the compensation amount, in case of non-delivery, to a ridiculously meagre sum that is totally disproportionate to the actual loss sufferred by the consumer.  I afraid, this is totally against public policy.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its celebrity authority in Central Inland Water Transportation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., reported in 1986 SCR (2) 278 observed thus -

Article  14 of the Constitution  guarantees to all persons equality  before the law and the equal protection of the laws. This principle is that the Courts will not enforce and will,  when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable  contract, or an unfair  and    unreasonable clause in a contract  entered into  between parties who are not equal  in bargaining  power. The  above  principle     will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the         great disparity in the economic  strength  of the contracting parties.  It will  apply where the inequality is the result  of circumstances, whether of the creating of the parties or  not. It  will apply to situations in which the weaker party  is in  a position in which he can obtain goods or services  or means  of livelihood  only  upon  the  terms imposed by  the stronger  party or  go without them. It will also  apply  where  a  man  has no  choice,  or  rather  no meaningful choice,  but to  give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to  accept a       set of rules as  part  of  the  contract, however, unfair   unreasonable or  unconscionable a  clause in that contract  or form          or rules may be. This principle will not apply  when the  bargaining     power of  the contracting parties is  equal or  almost equal.  this principle  may       not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial  transaction. In today's complex world of giant corporations with  their vast  infrastructural organizations and  with   the State through its  instrumentalities  and  agencies entering  into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations  which result  in unfair and  unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate   and unequal  bargaining power. The Court  must   judge  each   case  on   its  own  facts and circumstances when  called upon        to do      so by  a party under section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. [370 A-G] 290.

In  the  vast majority  of  cases,  however,  such contracts with unconscionable term  are entered into by the weaker party  under  pressure  of  circumstances,  generally economic, which results in inequality of bargaining power. Such contracts     will not fall within the four corners of the definition of  "undue influence" as defined by section 16(1) of the Indian Contract      Act. The majority of such contracts are in  a standard or prescribed form or consist of a set of rules. They are not contracts between individuals containing terms  meant  for  those  individuals  alone.  Contracts  in prescribed or  standard forms or which embody a set of rules as part         of the contract are entered into by the party with superior bargaining power with a large number of persons who have far  less bargaining  power or  no bargaining  power at all. Such  contracts which  affect a large number of persons or a group or groups of persons, if they are unconscionable, unfair   and   unreasonable  are   injurious  to the  public interest. To  say such     a contract is only voidable would be to compel  each person with whom  the party  with  superior bargaining power  had contracted  to go to Court to have the contract  adjudged  voidable.  This  would  only  result  in multiplicity of litigation which  no Court should encourage and also would not be in public interest. Such a contract or such a clause in a contract ought, therefore, to be adjudged void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, as opposed to public policy. [371 C-H].

The  Indian  Contract     Act  does  not define the expression "public  policy" or "opposed to  public policy". From  the  very       nature of things,  such  expressions are incapable of  precise definition. Public policy, however, is not the policy of a particular government. It connotes some matter which  concerns the  public  good  and          the  public interest. The  concept of  what is for the public good or in the public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public  good or the public interest has varied from time to time. As new concepts take the place of old, transactions which were  once considered  against public  policy are now being upheld  by the  courts and  similarly where  there has been a well-recognized head  of public policy, the  courts have not  shirked from extending it to new transactions and changed circumstances  and have at times  not even flinched from inventing   a new  head of public policy. The principles governing public policy must be and are capable on  proper occasion,  of expansion  or modification. Practices which were considered perfectly normal at one time have  today   become  abnoxious     and  oppressive  to  public conscience. If       there is  no head  of  public  policy  which covers a case, then the court must in consonance with public conscience and in  keeping  with  public  good and  public interest declares  such practice  to be opposed  to  public policy. Above  all, in deciding any  case which  may not be covered by  authority, Indian  Courts have  before  them the beacon light  of the  Preamble to  the Constitution. Lacking precedent, the Court can always be guided by that light and the principles underlying the          Fundamental Rights  and the Directive Principles  enshrined in our Constitution. [372 A-D; 373 C-E].

The normal rule of Common Law has been that a party who seeks to  enforce an  agreement which  is opposed  to public policy will  be non-suited.  The types of contracts to which the principle  formulated  in  this  case  applies  are not contracts  which   are tainted with illegality  but    are contracts which  contain  terms         which         are  so         unfair         and unreasonable that  they shock  the conscience  of the Court. They are  opposed  to  public  policy  and  required  to  be adjudged void. [373 F; 374 D-E]”.

Be that as it may, it appears that the Consignment Note on record does not bear any signature of the Complainant.  Therefore, it cannot be ascertained with certainty as to whether or not terms and conditions as stipulated in the Consignment Note was duly apprised to the Complainant before sending the consignment.  It is the settled position of law that where there is no conscious agreement between the parties, the unilateral conditions incorporated in the Consignment Note will not be binding on the parties. Accordingly, the plea that the OP Courier Company cannot be held liable beyond the scope of terms and conditions as contained in the Consignment Note, is totally a misnomer. 

The case of the Complainant, on the other hand, is that the Ld. District Forum while computing the liability of the OP Courier Company, did not take into consideration the loss suffered by her due to gross negligent act of the Courier concerned. 

The essence of the bone of contention, i.e., non-delivery of consignment is not in dispute.  It appears from the copy of Tax Invoice that the Complainant sent goods worth Rs. 60,676/- through the OP Courier after paying due service charge for this purpose.  As a carrier, the OP Courier Company was duty bound to ensure safe and timely delivery of the consignment to the addressee, which it could not ensure.  Therefore, there is no reason, why a hapless consumer should bear the brunt of laxity on the part of the service provider for which they charge a consumer through the roof.  Accountability can only be restored if we show zero tolerance towards acts of laxity.  In my considered view that the OP should be held liable to make good every penny of the loss suffered by the Complainant. 

It is alleged by the OP Courier that its official asked the Complainant to book those goods in a secure pack, but the Complainant ignoring such advice booked the article on ‘D’ series.  I afraid, to buttress such claim, the OP did not submit any affidavit from the said of the concerned booking personnel.  Mere allegation does not prove anything.  The onus of proving an allegation rests with the one who makes such allegation.  That being not done, hardly any cognizance can be taken of such allegation.

The Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that A/638/2016 and A/703/2016 be and the same are dismissed and allowed on contest, respectively.  The impugned order is modified as under:

The OPs shall pay the entire cost of goods, i.e., Rs. 60,676/- to the Complainant together with compensation for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs. 1,000/- within 45 days hence.  In default, OPs shall be liable to pay simple interest  @ 9% on Rs. 60,676/- from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 11-11-2014 till full and final payment is made.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.