PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24/03/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum Nagpur in CC No. 555/2007 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant /appellant herein as setup in the complaint in brief is that he runs a business in the name and styled as “BIOMEDICS” an he supplies medical equipments to hospitals and Doctors. He had booked with the opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 a consignment containing four sterilized and sealed Annuloplasty Mitral Rings vide receipt No. 917004578571 on 26/10/2007 for sending to Mr. Blesson Vargnese at Pune. The O.P. No.1 issued receipt of that consignment on receiving requisite charges from the Complainant. The complainant also issued one certificate about the said surgical instrument consigned to the O.P No.1. The said consignment was not received by Mr. Blesson Vargnese at Pune. Therefore, on 01/11/2007 the complainant by writing a letter to O.P. No.1, informed it about not receiving the consignment by the Mr. Blesson Vargnese. Thereafter the complainant served legal notice on 08/11/2007 to the O.P. calling upon it either to deliver the aforesaid consignment or pay him cost of Rs.80,000/- with taxes and interest. No response of that notice was given by the O.P. Nos.1&2. Therefore, the complainant claimed return of the said consignment or in alternative payment of Rs.80,000/- with taxes and interest as cost of the said consignment, to him from O.P. Nos. 1&2. He also claimed Rs.8,000/- from them towards cost of proceeding and Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment. 3. The O.P. Nos. 1&2 filed their common written version and thereby resisted the complaint. They admitted that complainant had booked a consignment with them on 26/10/2007 and that the said consignment was not delivered to the addressee. They denied that four rings as stated in the complaint were consigned to them under sealed packet. However, they submitted that it was a small sealed packet and that the complainant was aware that valuables or consignments above worth Rs.100/- cannot be booked and that the complainant never disclosed that there were four medical equipments in that packet. Their liability is limited to the extent of Rs.100/- only. It is denied that the said medical equipments were worth Rs.80,000/-. The documents produced by the complainant are false and fabricated. Thus they denied that complainant is entitled to the amount claimed by him. They thus submitted that complaint may be dismissed. 4. The District Consumer Forum below after hearing Advocates of both the parties and considering evidence brought on record, found that there is deficiency in service provided by the O.Ps. to the complainant as the consignment received by them from the complainant has been lost. However, the District Consumer Forum below also found that the O.Ps. are liable to pay Rs. 100/- only to the complainant towards compensation in view of the condition mention on the booking receipt. It therefore directed O.Ps. to pay to the complainant Rs.100/-. It also directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost to the complaint. 5. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the original complainant has preferred this appeal. The learned Advocate of the appellant and respondent No.1 filed their respective written notes of arguments. We have also heard them and perused the papers placed before us by them. The appeal proceeded exaprte against the respondent No.2 as per order dated 30/11/2012. 6. The learned Advocate of the appellant/original complainant submitted that as the terms and conditions mention on the booking receipt are not signed by the appellant, he is not bound by the said terms and conditions. He also submitted that the value of the lost articles is Rs.80,000/- and therefore when admittedly the said articles have been lost due to negligence of the respondents herein, they are liable to pay Rs.80,000/- to the appellant. He relied upon observations made in the case of Madhur Courier Services Vs. Dr. R.S. Pande, reported in 1999 (1) CPR 23, by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. In that case the receipt did not bear signature of consignor and therefore it is held that the conditions mentioned on the receipt are not binding on him. Thus it is submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellant that District Forum below erred in granting compensation of Rs. 100/- only relying on the condition not signed by the appellant. He further submitted that the grant of meager compensation of Rs. 100/- is unjust and illegal and hence the impugned order may be modified and appellant /original complainant be awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest towards loss of his four medical equipments due to negligence of respondents herein. 7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate of the respondent No.1 submitted that the appellant/ original complainant did not disclos that the sealed packet contained four medical equipments worth Rs. 80,000/- and that as per terms and conditions mentioned on booking receipt, the respondents are liable only to pay Rs. 100/- due to loss of the packet. He relied upon observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Consumer Protection Counsel, Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s. Indu Couriers Pvt. Ltd., 1 (1996) CPJ 3 (NC). In that case, consignment was not delivered by courier agency . The State Commission held that the courier agency is liable and awarded compensation of Rs.1000/- against the claim of Rs. 1.50 lacs. The Hon’ble National Commission in appeal held that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs. 1.50 lacs. The Hon’ble National Commission held that it would be appropriate to limit the quantum of the compensation to Rs.100/- only and hence the order of the State Commission was modified to the extent of payment of compensation of Rs. 100/- by courier agency to the complainant. The learned Advocate of the respondent No.1 thus supported the impugned order and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 8. The appellant/original complainant has relied upon the booking receipt dated 26/10/2007 issued by the respondents herein to show that the said receipt was not signed by him. No doubt the said receipt is not signed by the appellant/original complainant. However, the signature of the appellant/ original complainant was required only to agree the terms and conditions mention on the reverse side of the said booking receipt. But he was not required to sign the declaration given on the front side of that receipt. The said declaration is to the effect that the consignment is accepted at owners risk and that the company recommends the consignor to insure the contents or its value and that the company’s liability on this shipment is limited to Rs.100/- or cost of reconstruction whichever is lower. Thus the appellant/original complainant accepted the said receipt with the said declaration given by the respondent herein. The said declaration cannot be ignored while considering liability of the respondent herein due to loss of consignment. In our view as per said declaration no liability can be fastened on the respondent herein for payment of cost of Rs.80,000/- due to loss of alleged equipments . 9. The appellant/original complainant has also relied upon a challan dated 26/10/2007 to show that four medical equipments were consigned to the respondents herein for sending the same to Pune. The said challan is not signed by the respondents. Moreover it does not show value of consigned equipments. It also does not prove that the four medical equipments mentioned there in were received by respondents herein as per booking receipt dated 26/10/2007. Therefore, the said challan is not of any evidentiary value to prove that four medical equipments worth Rs.80,000/- were handed over to the respondents herein. 10. The appellant/original complainant has also relied upon a certificate issued by him certifying that the box contains surgical instruments being sent to Mr. Blesson Varghese of Pune. The said certificate is also not signed by the respondents herein. There is no reference of consignment receipt dated 26/10/2007 in it. The said certificate also does not show that the said box containing surgical instrument was delivered to the respondent courier agency. Therefore, the said certificate is also of no importance. 11. We thus hold that the District Consumer Forum below has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant/original complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.80,000/- from the respondents herein towards value of alleged lost equipments. Moreover, the District Consumer Forum below has rightly granted compensation of Rs.100/- as per declaration given on the booking receipt. Thus we find that there is no ground to enhance the said compensation of Rs.100/-. 12. We find that the facts and circumstances of present case discussed above are totally different from those of the aforesaid case relied upon by the learned Advocate of the appellant and hence it is not applicable to the present case. There is no merit in this appeal and hence it deserves to be dismissed. ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. No order as to cost in appeal. iii. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost. | 
