JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. 2. Mr. Mariano Marcelino Cardozo, complainant No.1 and Mr. Samiro Cardozo, complainant No. 2 wanted to subscribe to India Millennium Deposits, a scheme floated by State Bank of India, in US dollars. The above said complainants booked two parcels with Manvins Worldwide Express Courier, opposite party No. 1, Mr. Peter M. Vaz, opposite party No. 2 and Mr. Vincent Rangel, opposite party No. 3 on 28.10.2000 and 30.10.2000 to be delivered to American Express Bank Limited, Fort, Mumbai (AMEX). The first parcel contained the application form alongwith crossed pay order of $15,000 and the second parcel contained the application form and crossed pay order of $ 2000. This is an admitted fact that both the parcels were wrongly delivered to the third party i.e. American Express Travel Related Services at Fort, Mumbai. 3. The excuse made by the delivery man was that when he went to the American Express Bank Limited at Fort, Mumbai, the security -3- officer met him and informed him that American Express Travel Related services was the sister concern of American Express Bank. Consequently, the delivery man delivered the envelopes to him. He also affixed the rubber stamp of American Express Travel Services. This happened twice in both these cases. It is also not disputed that the complainant were able to receive the amount detailed in that crossed pay order, subsequently. 4. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainants are entitled to compensation @10% on the said amount for six months, which works out to be Rs.39,750/-. He also granted travel expenses of Rs.5,000/-. It also awarded additional compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. The total amount awarded is Rs.64,750/-. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention towards para 3 of the Couriers Act, 1865 which is reproduced as under: “3. Carriers not to be liable for loss of certain goods above one hundred rupees in value, unless delivered as such.-No common carrier shall be liable for the loss of or damage to property -4- delivered to him to be carried exceeding in value one hundred rupees and of the description contained in the Schedule to this Act, unless the person delivering such property to be carried, or some person duly authorized in that behalf, shall have expressly declared to such carrier or his agent the value and description thereof.” 6. The terms and conditions were supplied to the complainants. One of the letters provides “I hereby agree to the terms and conditions of the Carriage which I have read and understood Consignor’s signature (Blank) but these do not bear the signature of the consignee/complainants. 7. Section 3 of the Act will have no application in this case because these terms and conditions were carved out in that receipt itself. It is clear that the complainants were not made to understand it. Had it been signed by the complainant, the compensation would have been different. 8. Despite this section, it is the bounden duty of the carriers to inform its customers that no amount through demand draft can be sent by the carrier. It is the duty of the carrier to ask what kind of articles, they were sending through the courier. Moreover, -5- negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the opposite parties stand established. It stands proved that they delivered the letter to some other person. There is considerable difference between the two entities. The State Commission observed in para 13 of the order, which is reproduced as under : “The complainants have made exaggerated claim that they would have earned 20% p.a. on their investment of US $ 17,000 corresponding to Indian Rs.7,95,000/-. Investments in foreign exchange generally do not give such high returns. We have already noted that the complainants have not stated as to when exactly they were able to encash the pay orders from ICICI Bank in the sum of US $ 17,000. We therefore proceed on the assumption that the complainants were deprived of the said amount corresponding to Rs.7,95,000/- for a period of six months and therefore award to the complainant’s compensation at the rate of 10% on the said amount for six months which works out to Rs.39,750/-. The complainants claimed that they made two trips to -6- Mumbai, one through their agent. No bus or other tickets have been produced. We do not know why such trips were required to be made after the OPs had given to the complainants the said POD/acknowledgement which clearly indicated that the dispatched articles were not delivered to the consignee American Express Bank Ltd, Fort, Mumbai but were wrongly delivered by the Ops to American Express Travel Related Services. We would restrict the travel expenses only to one trip i.e. for Rs.5,000/-. We would award to the complainants additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- for inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, consequent to the said wrong delivery of the articles sent by the complainants through the Ops. The said compensation payable therefore would work out to Rs.64,750/-. We modify the impugned order to that extent while maintaining the cost of Rs.5,000/-.” 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the complainants have not come to the Commission with clean -7- hands. They did not say as to when they received the amount. The assumptions made by the State Commission are all wet. 10. We find force in this argument in a measure. Therefore, we are inclined to delete the compensation and travel expenses. An amount of Rs.39750/- will include the period in question plus compensation and travel expenses etc. Consequently, we modify the order of the State Commission and require the opposite party/petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.39,750/- only to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise it will carry interest @10% per annum till its realization. The revision petition stands disposed of. Amount already deposited/paid by the opposite party shall be adjusted. | 
