Karnataka

Belgaum

445/2014

Rajesh S/o. F Hutagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor. The D.T.D.C Courier & Cargo Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.S..Hanchinal

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency of courier service.

          2) The O.Ps. appeared through advocate and contended and admit that complainant booked the consignment on 7/3/2014 through the O.P. company to be delivered to Delhi by paying transshipment charges only. The O.P. further submits that even taking best care and in spite of due diligence in delivering the consignment it was loss in transit and same was made known to  complainant. The O.P. contended that their liability is restricted to only Rs.100/- non delivery and loss of the consignment during the transit etc., and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and both O.Ps. have filed their affidavit and produced some documents.

4) We have heard the arguments of the complainant and O.Ps. and have perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps.  for non delivery of consignment booked and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7) The complainant has claimed that the O.Ps. have not delivered the document to the destiny and further submits that on 7/3/2014 the complainant sent letter, documents through courier service to be delivered to Delhi under receipt No.808083537. The complainant further states that he sent documents on 7/3/2014 and after 10 days he contacted the O.P.No.1 on 20/3/2014 after receiving information from Gokulchand and Sons on 17/3/2014 stating that the documents are not yet reached. The complainant further submits that he enquired same with the O.P. 1 and 2 but did not informed complainant till 31/4/2014 and lastly on 7/5/2014 issued legal notice but the O.Ps. made no arrangement to deliver the article and claim Rs.1 lakh with interest at the rate of 18% P.A. as a compensation and damages etc.,

          8) The O.Ps. appeared through advocate and contended and admit that complainant booked the consignment on 7/3/2014 through the O.P. company to be delivered to Delhi by paying transshipment charges only. The O.P. further submits that even taking best care and in spite of due diligence in delivering the consignment it was loss in transit and same was made known to  complainant. The O.P. contended that their liability is restricted to only Rs.100/- non delivery and loss of the consignment during the transit etc., and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          9) The point to be considered is that the O.Ps. have admitted in their objection and affidavit that the consignment booked by the complainant was lost during the transit but the complainant at the time of sending the documents/article have not declare the value of the consignment. Hence their liability is restricted to only Rs.100/- as per the terms and conditions of over leaf of the consignment receipt. For the time being even though it was the duty of the complainant to mentioned the value of the article and also if the articles are important the same has to be insured as per the terms and conditions of the courier and cargo. But at the same time it is the duty of the O.P. to see that the courier or the consignment shall reached the destiny when they have agreed to deliver the same and on consideration. Merely stating that the consigner who sent the consignment have not mentioned the value of the article or not insured, the liability of the service provider will not be totally waived. The transaction between the parties is on the belief that the person who sent the articles will reached the person to whom is sending to and upon that it is the foremost duty of the service provider to see that whatever may be the piece of document or article which values less or more, to see that it reaches safely to the person to whom to it shall be delivered apart from the terms and conditions of the service provider as in this case. It is also true that the person who sent articles shall declare the value in case of Jevelleries, cash or any such other documents or articles which can cause hazards while transporting by air or by road etc., But in the present case as per the contention of the complainant that he has sent the important documents and letters to Gokulchand and sons Delhi and same were not reached them and this fact is also been clearly admitted by the O.Ps. The main defends of the O.P. is that their liability is restricted to Rs.100/- as per the terms and condition printed over leaf of the receipt at point No.16 wherein it is mentioned that maximum liability is Rs.100/- unless the sender declares a higher value as declared value for carriage and also pays the applicable risk surcharge as carrier etc., In the present case the complainant produced the receipt of the sending consignment wherein the value of goods column and description of contents column empty. In general practice of courier service it is seen that when person wants to send a small pocket or parcel usually the courier service will issue the receipt in the name of the person who sending without enquiry what article it contents and will not note the description and value of the articles also. In this pretext it is not all the courier but some courier services follow the simple practice and avoid their own terms and conditions.

          10) The another point to be noted is that the complainant has contended has not established the value of the documents that is Rs.1 lakh or proved to show that the documents and letters sent through courier where worth of the amount as mentioned in the complaint. Hence the liability of the O.Ps. is restricted as per the order below;

          11) Considering the arguments submitted by both the parties and after verifying the documents on hand the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and is entitled for the claim as order;

12) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          Complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay Rs.100/- to the complainant as maximum liability along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and also Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of the order, failing which the total amount to be paid to the complainant will carry interest at the rate of 8% P.A. after completion of stipulated period of one month.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 23^rd March 2015)

            Member                   Member                    President.

gm*