JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant- Narasimharaju against the Respondent for to direct it either to deliver the consignment booked or to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 14-01-08 till realization of the full amount. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he sent his original records of his education of primary education to the engineering degree with his resume and application to Sri. Yeshwant Rao Patil Ravur, Gulbarga with consignment NO. 1485109 on 14-01-08. The Opposite party has failed to deliver the said consignment to the said addressee and not returned and not returned it to him, he requested number of times in writing as well as in oral but opposite not shown interest in returning the consignment or to deliver it to the consignee. It is the negligent and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service. Therefore he filed this complaint for reliefs as prayed for in it. 3. The Opposite appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version by admitting the booking of the parcel by the complainant on 14-01-08 in the name of consignee at Gulbarga. At the time of delivering the said consignment, delivery boy visited the house of consignee and noted his absence in the house, as such he was delivered to a person who is tenant under consignee and obtained endorsement him. Therefore the question of mis-placement or redelivery of the parcel to the complainant does not arise. There was no deficiency in service on its part and denied all other allegations and prayed for to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, his consignment bearing No. 1485109 consisting of his original records of his education booked in the Opposite courier for to deliver it to consignee at Gulbarga, but opposite courier neither delivered to the consignee at Gulbarga nor returned the parcel to him thereafter it shows its negligence in delivering the parcel to the consignee or in returning it to the complainant instead of oral and written request and thereby Opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service towards him.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the father and S.P.A. of complainant was filed who is noted as PW-1 and affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed he was noted as PW-2. The documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. 7. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of franchisee of Opposite courier was filed he was noted as RW-1 and affidavit-evidence of delivery boy of the Opposite courier of Gulbarga was filed, he was noted as RW-2. The documents as Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. 8. In the instant case booking of the parcel by the complainant through opposite courier to deliver it to the consignee at Gulbarga is not in dispute. The case of the complainant is that the parcel booked by him not delivered to the consignee at Gulbarga. On the other hand the Opposite courier is contending that the said parcel delivered to the tenant residing under consignee at Gulbarga. 9. Admittedly the delivery of the parcel by the Opposite courier was not made to the consignee at Gulbarga. The case of the complainant is that the said parcel was not delivered to the addressee or not returned to him. He further contended that there was no such tenant residing in the house of addressee. In the said circumstances, it is for the Opposite to make necessary enquiry before deliver it to the addressee at Gulbarga. The evidence of RW-2 delivery boy himself stated in his evidence that the parcel was not delivered to the addressee but it was delivered to the tenant. It is a fact that Opposite courier should not delivered the consignment to any one other than the addressee, it is the responsibility of it, opposite cannot jurk its responsibility on others shoulder by saying that the parcel was delivered to some one other then the addressee, as such what ever the submissions made by the learned advocate for Opposite are not considered. 10. Now the question before us is that what is the courier liability in the said circumstances, in this regard we have followed the principles of the case of Bharati Knitting Company V/s. DHL World Wide Express Courier reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 208 = 1998 CTJ 557 (SC) (CP) at the same time we have also referred another rulings of the Honble Supreme Court pertaining to TATA Chemicals Limited V/s Sky Park Courier Private Limited reported in 2002 CTJ 539 (SC) (CP), another ruling referred by us in this regard is of the Honble National Commission Desk to Desk Couriers & Cargo V/s. Kerala State Electronic Development Corporation Limited reported in 2004 CTJ 442 (CP). 11. The learned advocate for complainant also relied on the case Osuri Devendra Phanikar V/s. Desk to Desk Couriers & Cargo Limited reported in 2003 STPL (CL) 262 (NC) another ruling on which the complainant placed reliance is Blue Dart Express Limited V/s. Stephen Liveral. In these two cases their lordships of the National Commission referred and followed the principles of ruling of the Honble Supreme Court Bharati Knitting Company V/s. DHL World Wide Express Courier. On going through the evidence of the parties, their documents and submissions made before us, we are of the view that the material documents to appreciate the case of the complainant is Ex.P-2 which is Consignment Note. This document not denied by the Opposite courier. On going through the document at Ex.P-2 it is very much clear that this complainant not signed it. In the similar way opposite courier not signed it. Ex.P-2(1) is Duplicate Copy of Ex.P-2 shows the same. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the condition note printed on the right side bottom of Ex.P-2 not binding on the complainant. The said opinion formed by us in the light of the principles of the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court as well as National Commission referred above in the background of document Ex.P-2. Ex.R-1 is a blank Printed Proforma of Consignment Note as seen it is not assisting us in any manner. Ex.R-2 Delivery Run Sheet discloses the fact that the consignment was not delivered to addressee. Under the circumstances, the liability of the courier is not to the extent of 100/- Rupee as canvassed before us, the liability of its is to the extent of actual loss sustained by the complainant for not delivering the consignment to the addressee. Other contentions of opposite, regarding the maintainability of complaint he is SPA executed in favour of his father are all not discussed in detail as there are no pleadings to that effect in the W.V. Hence we are of the view that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of this opposite courier towards him, as such we answered in Point No-1 in affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 12. It is fact that the parcel booked by the complainant was consisting of his educational records which were sent to the addressee at Gulbarga, now as stands on today the said parcel is missing, we cannot direct the opposite to return the said consignment consisting of original testimonials to the complainant but there is a prayer of the complainant alternatively for to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to him. To accept this big quantum as compensation to the complainant, there are no sufficient evidences out coming from the side of the complainant, however we have taken note of the entire difficulties facing by the complainant due to loss of parcel in the transit which is due to deficiency in service by the opposite courier, we are of the view that awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant payable by the opposite courier is proper and reasonable amount. As such we have order that the complainant is entitled for to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite courier. The complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of judgement till realization of the full amount with cost. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our finding on Point No-1 & 2 we proceed t pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the Opposite Party. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said total sum from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. Intimate the parties accordingly. Opposite Party is hereby given One month time from the date of the judgement for to make payment. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-07-09) Sd/- Sri.Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
