BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) claiming a sum of Rs.4,500/- being the cost of the goods together with damages of Rs.30,000/- from OP for deficiency in service on their part.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

On 28.01.2013 the complainant sent one parcel box weighing 780 grams to his daughter Sushma Deshpande and her husband residing at U.P., Noida through OP courier by paying courier charges of Rs.120/-.  That the said parcel box was containing eatables worth Rs.400/-, currency notes of Rs.500x5=2500/-, blouse pieces, shirt pieces worth Rs.350/-, pooja materials worth Rs.750/-, idols Rs.800/- in all together worth Rs.4,500/-.  The said parcel was not delivered to the addressee.  The complainant approached the OP several times but the OP failed to give satisfactory reply for the non delivery of the parcel.  Later on 17.05.2013 the complainant submitted his complaint in writing.  That the complainant ultimately got issued a legal notice dated 19.10.2013 calling upon OP to compensate for the loss of parcel.  However, the OP did not respond to the notice and also failed to compensate the complainant for the loss of the parcel. 

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to pay him Rs.4,500/- being the cost of the parcel sent through OP Courier and Rs.30,000/- towards damages for mental agony, hardship and for deficiency of service together with cost of the proceedings.

3. In response to the notice issued OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version admitting the booking of the parcel by the complainant and admitting the loss of the parcel in transit and further contended as under:

That the OP is governed by the Carriers Act and as per Section 3 of the Carriers Act, until and unless the value of the consignment is declared by the consignee at the time of booking the carrier’s liability is limited to Rs.100/-.  Thus OP has accepted the consignment with a clear condition that in case of non delivery or delay in delivery of the consignment the compensation payable is limited to Rs.100/- and the complainant has signed the consignment note accepting the conditions mentioned therein and the parties are bound by the contract.  That the complainant has not declared the value of the consignment at the time of booking the consignment.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Even otherwise the OP is bound to pay a sum of Rs.100/- towards the loss of the consignment as stipulated in Section 3 of the Carriers Act.  Therefore, OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as claimed by him.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. After the version was filed by the OP, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly, the complainant filed affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence.  Similarly the OP also filed the affidavit evidence of their Manager Sri.T.G Gopinath in lieu of oral evidence.  The complainant filed his written arguments.  The OP failed to file either written arguments or advance oral arguments.  

5.  The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, the documents filed along with the complaint, the sworn testimony of the complainant as well as OP and the written arguments filed by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8.  Admittedly the complainant on 28.01.2013 booked a parcel weighing 780 grams to be delivered to his daughter and son-in-law residing in Noida in U.P through the OP Courier by paying courier charges of Rs.120/-.  The relevant booking receipt is produced by the complainant.  The OP contends that the consignment could not be delivered to the daughter of the complainant as the same was lost in the transit.  The complainant claims that the said consignment contained 5 currency notes of Rs.500/- each and eatables worth Rs.400/-, blouse pieces, shirt pieces worth Rs.350/-, pooja materials worth Rs.750/-, idols worth Rs.800/-.  Thus the complainant claims that the total value of the contents of the consignment was worth Rs.4500/-.  Admittedly as contended by the OP, the complainant has not declared the contents of the parcels at the time of booking.  Admittedly the complainant cannot book the currency notes.  Booking currency notes or sending currency notes through courier is not permissible under law.  Therefore, the complainant cannot claim reimbursement of Rs.2,500/- sent through the said consignment.

9. The OP in its version as well as in the affidavit claimed that as per the Section.3 of the Carriers Act, until and unless the value of the consignment is declared by the consignee at the time of booking, the carrier’s liability is limited to Rs.100/-.  Therefore, it is contended that even if the Forum comes to the conclusion that the OP is liable to pay the price of the consignment it is limited to Rs.100/- only.  The learned advocate for the OP did not produce the copy of the Carrier’s Act nor the relevant provision.  In absence of the copy of the Carrier’s Act before us, we are not able to accept the contention of the OP that his liability is limited to Rs.100/- in the present case since the complainant is not declared the value of the consignment at the time of booking.

10. We don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that he had sent material worth Rs.2,000/- in the said parcel box.  The failure on the part of OP in delivering the consignment to the addressee amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the OP is liable to pay the cost of the contents of the consignment to the complainant which was worth Rs.2,000/-.

11. The non delivery of the consignment for a long time and failure of in informing the complainant regarding loss of consignment in transit even after lapse of 3-4 months must have caused lot of mental agony, hardship and inconvenience to the complainant.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the OP has to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  The OP is also liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, point No.1 answered.  The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant being cost of the consignment and compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

The OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within six weeks from the date of communication.

          Send the copy of the order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 25^th day of November 2015)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 17.10.2014.

1. Sri. Prahlada Rao Deshpande

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties dated 21.11.2014.

1. Sri.T.G Gopinath    

Document produced by the Opposite party – Nil

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*