Shri V.J. Chacko,

59 G, Green Park,

1st Daddio, Telaulim,

Navelim Salcete Goa. ….. Complainant



V/s.



1. Manvin”s World Wide Express Courier,

Municipal Garden Courier,

Panjim Goa.



2. Prakash Airfreight Limited,

Regd. Office at Kotshwar Palace,

Diva Mahale Marg.,

Mumbai 400 069 ….. Opposite Parties

O R D E R
…2/-

1. On 20.07.2000 the Complainant booked through OP1 a parcel to his daughter Kavita Chacko undergoing coaching classes for her MBA entrance test at Pune. The parcel was said to be containing documents such as SSC, HSSC and Bachelor degree certificates that were required to be produced by her for group discussion and interview on 24.07.2000.


2. The Complainant has alleged that the OPs failed to deliver the parcel and consequently his daughter was barred from participating in the said G&D interview thus loosing opportunity for the said course and also resulting wastage of time and money.


3. The Complainant has also alleged that for preparing effectively his daughter was required to put up in Poona and the financial loss of Rs. 60000/- incurred by him on account of fees, boarding, lodging, books, stationery and STD Phone , he is entitled to claim from the OPs.


4. The Complainant therefore prays for direction to OP to pay, jointly and severally

a) Rs. 60,000/- as compensation

b) Any other appropriate or meaningful order to effectively compensate the complainant.


5. The cause of action allegedly arose on 02.08.2000 when legal notice was issued to the Complainant.


6. The Complainant has relied on various documents as spelt out in the list of documents dated 11.2.2000 attached to and forming part of the complaint.

On issuance of summons The Opposite Parties filed their written version dated 27.06.2001 on the following amongst other grounds:
…3/-

A. The OPs admitted that the packet was booked through them under consignment No. 7258311 but denied the same contained the original certificates as alleged. It is also their case that the complainant had written wrong pin code i.e. 911005 instead of 411005, which apparently led the sorting office to forward the packet to wrong destination. On receipt of the complaint they made enquiries but failed to retrieve the parcel and therefore the consignment could not be delivered.


B. The OPs stated that they made reference of this case to the Director. of Technical Education Mumbai, who conducts such tests at Pune and other centres, for MBA candidates and as per response received from him it is clear that even if the candidate fails to produce the original mark sheets or even attested copies he is permitted to appear for the PI/GD. They therefore contend as false the Complainants submission that his daughter was barred from the interview.


C. The OPs have alleged that at the time of booking the parcel the Complainant had not disclosed the contents of the packet. This apart it is also their contention that he has accepted the terms and conditions printed on the reverse of the consignment note and clauses 2 & 3 therein limit the compensation for loss, shortage damage or for unforeseen delay of the consignment to maximum of Rs. 100/-only.

D. It is their case that the Complainant has approached this Forum by misrepresentation and falsifying the facts with a view to derive undue monetary benefit. They have denied that they are liable for any such claims and the alleged indirect and consequential damages which are specifically excluded in the contract terms on the consignment note.

E. The OPs have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharati Knitting Co. V/s DHL Worldwide Express Couriers (S.C.C. (1996) upholding the decision of the National Consumer Forum that when the Complainant accepts the specific terms and conditions printed on the consignment note he is bound by the same.

…4/-

F. They have accordingly prayed that their liabilities be restricted to Rs. 100/- and any claims above this amount be rejected and have further submitted that since the complaint is based on misrepresentation and frivolous and false grounds costs be awarded to them.

The Complainant as well as the OPs filed their affidavits in evidence dated 08.10.2001, 30.01.2002, and 24.01.2002 respectively inter-alia adopting their respective cases as set out in their pleadings.

Parties also advanced their oral arguments as also filed written arguments dated 28.03.2002 and 26.04.2002 respectively.

Now on perusal of the pleadings and available evidence as well as the arguments advanced we proceed to record our observations and findings as would appear herein after.

I. We find there is no dispute as to the facts that the Complainant booked the said parcel and that it was not delivered. The OPs have however alleged that the Complainant wrote a wrong pin number and as a result the consignment may have been sent to wrong destination. In our opinion , without the consignment(packet) before us it is not possible to ascertain who has actually committed the mistake of writing wrong pin number, whether the Complainant or the OP. Though the address on the packet is written by the consignor the consignment booking note is invariably written by the consignee themselves and therefore there exists faint possibility the consignee themselves could have erroneously written wrong number on the consignment note. i.e. 911005 instead of 411005. It is possible that number four could have been misread as nine and accordingly written. Being so, we find it difficult to conclusively establish that the Complainant had written the wrong pin number and attribute to him the resultant action of the OP in not delivering the parcel or sending the parcel to wrong destination.
…5/-

II. Concerning the allegations of the Complainant, more specifically the allegation as to the Complainant’s daughter being barred from the interview, we have perused the letter dated 16.01.2002 from the Director of Education produced on record by the OPs. The Director has very explicitly stated that if the candidate fails to bring the original mark sheets or even the attested copies they are permitted to attend the interview. The allegation of the Complainant in this regard is therefore found to be unreliable.


III. We also observe, that the issue as to compensation to be paid in such cases, stands settled by the Apex Court in their judgment, in the case Bharati Knitting Co V/s DHL Worldwide Express Couriers (S.C.C. (1996). Though The Complainant has averred that the same is not applicable herein he has failed to show how it is not applicable. We therefore ignore this averment and hold that in accordance with the above decision the compensation herein can be only to the extent stipulated in the terms and conditions on the reverse of the booking slip i.e Rs. 100/- only.

IV. The Complainant’s contention that the consignment note does not bear his signature also cannot be accepted for it is a matter of common knowledge that the consignees do take the signature of the consigners at the time of booking and there is no reason to believe that the Complainants signature was not obtained in this case and the signature thereon does not belong to him.

V. Non-delivery of the parcel is definitely a deficiency as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and for the said deficiency we hold the OPs herein guilty under the Act and pass the following Order.

O R D E R

The Opposite Parties herein are jointly and severally directed to payP the Complainant Compensation of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only).