CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL vs CHAIRMAN, AIR FREIGHT LTD.

THE first opposite party is the Chairman, Air Freight Ltd., DHL Courier Division, Bombay and the 2nd opposite party is the Area Manager, Air Freight Ltd., Pantheon Road, Egmore.

THE 2nd complainant (the first complainant is the Consumer Protection Council, Trichy) R. Srinivasan on 13.1.95 sent an envelope through the 2nd opposite party to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. According to the complainant the envelope contained 2 passports, visa forms, demand drafts all meant for the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi for getting Visas for the complainant and his son to visit Canada. THE Consignment Note Number was 19148765 dated 13.1.95. At Madras it was informed to the 2nd opposite party that the envelope was important and it contained passports etc, and it has been so superscribed. THE 2nd opposite party accepted the envelope and promised him to deliver it in the next 48 hours. But it is not at all been delivered. On hearing from the Canadian High Commission that the envelope has not been delivered to them the complainant contacted the opposite parties and he was told by them that the envelope had been delivered. THE circumstances indicated that the claim of the opposite party that the envelope had been delivered to the Canadian High Commission is not true. According to the complainant the Air-Freight DHL Couriers have been negligent in not delivering the envelope. THE complainants were therefore compelled to apply for new passports and visas. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs 15,500/ - the expenses incurred by the complainant for telephones and fax charges to find out the fate of the envelope, and Rs. 4,000/- for expenses incurred in obtaining 2 fresh passports and 2 U.K. visas for 6 months, and Rs. 5,00,000/- for loss of business opportunities and Rs. 3,00,000/- for mental agony and physical hardship caused to the complainant, and also for Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The opposite party in their written version denied the allegations against them in the complaint. They interalia contended that the envelope in question was delivered to the Canadian High Commission. They also contended that the complainant did not declare that the envelope contained Demand Draft and then they contended that the complaint is without substance of merits and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the alleged loss of envelope sent through the opposite party-Courier is true and there was negligence and deficiency in service on their part, and if so what relief can be granted to the complainant.

IT is not in dispute that the envelope was sent by the complainant through the opposite party Courier on 13.1.95 from Madras to be delivered to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. Whereas according to the complainant the envelope has not been delivered at all. The opposite party in their version would contend that the envelope has been delivered. But however the opposite parties have no document whatsoever in proof of delivery. This. being the case, the case of the complainant that the opposite parties failed to deliver the envelope must be taken to be true. In fact during the enquiry the contention of the opposite parties that the envelope had been delivered was not pressed. This clearly shows that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The remaining question is: to what relief the complainant is entitled to. In this context the learned Counsel for the opposite party brought to our notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in "Bharat Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)=1996 (2) TNCR 711". The facts of this case is quite similar to the facts of the case before us. In that case, also the complaint was filed before this Commission and against the order passed therein an appeal was filed before the National Commission and against the order of the National Commission the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in its judgment confirmed the relief granted to the complainant by the National Commission reducing the relief granted by this Commission. In its judgment the National Commission in reported in "Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Suresh, I (1994) CPJ 52 (NC)" the National Commission held that since the liability was only US $ 100 as per the courier receipt, the appellant is entitled for deficiency in service only to that extent which is equivalent to Rs. 3,550/- with interest @ 18% from May 25,1990 till date of realisation with costs. (May 25,1990 is the date of delivery of the consignment to the Courier for transport). The Supreme Court has confirmed this order of the National Commission stating in Para 6 as follows:

"In view of the above consideration and findings we are of the opinion that the National Commission was right in limiting the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties and in awarding the amount for deficiency in service to the extent of the liability undertaken by the respondent. Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the order passed by the Commission."

As per the Receipt involved in the present case, the complainant could be entitled to Rs. 1,000/- for deficiency in service. He will be entitled to interest on this amount from the date of receipt.

CONSIDERING the above, in view of the National Commission order and Supreme Court judgment the complainant in the present case, as per the terms of the receipt will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from 13.1.95 i.e., the date when the envelope was given to the opposite party. We order accordingly. The opposite party shall pay a cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. Order accordingly with cost.