DESK TO DESK COURIER AND CARGO LTD. vs REESI KRISHNAVENI

THIS appeal is filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the order of the District Forum, Visakhapatnam dated 27.8.1999 in C.D. No. 566/98. The original complaint was filed by Smt. Reesi Krishnaveni against M/s. Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo Limited, N.A.D. Kotha Road (opposite party No. 1) represented by its Manager and Desk to Desk Cargo Ltd., Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam (opposite party No. 2) for deficiency of service in not delivering her application in time addressed to the Principal, D.I.T.E., Vomarvally, Srikakulam District. On 14.7.1998 the complainant handed over the application to be delivered on the above address, 20.7.1998 being the last date for receiving applications. The examination was to be held on 2.8.1998. However since the complainant did not receive any hall ticket, she enquired on 28.7.1998 from the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 2 who could not confirm whether her application was delivered in time. Subsequently it neither delivered the application to the Principal, DITE nor returned it to the complainant. As a result complainant lost one academic year. She, therefore, lodged complaint at District Forum, Visakhapatnam on 10.11.1998. Since notice was not delivered case against the first opposite party was dismissed by the District Forum. Second opposite party filed its counter and affidavit was filed by G.V. Satyanarayana, its Net Work Executive. Complainant also filed her affidavit. The District Forum however directed the opposite party No. 2 to return Rs. 15/- the amount paid by the complainant and also pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- within two months failing which interest of 15% p.a. was awarded from the date of order till the date of payment and also Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

IN the appeal opposite party No. 2 questions the order of the District Forum stating that as per the condition printed in the consignment voucher its liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 100/- only for any loss or damage. In the complaint since the notice was not served on the first opposite party the claim against it was dismissed by the District Forum. The second opposite party filed its counter and affidavit was filed by G.V. Satyanarayana, Net Work Executive. He alleged that opposite party No. 1 was not aware that the date of examination was 2.8.1998 and the last date for receipt of application was 20.7.1998 and it could not deliver the letters at Vomarvally as it was wrongly informed by the complainant that Vomarvally was in Srikakulam town while it was located in Srikakulam District which was 20 miles away. It could not return it to the complainant as her address at Visakhapatnam was incomplete. However the said cover was not filed by the opposite party and, therefore, the District Forum stated as follows : "The cover is not filed by the opposite party. If it is filed it would reveal whether the complainant stated that delivery point Vomarvilly is village (in) and it is the delivery point. the consignee address is noted down by the opposite parties but not by the complainant."

They also observed that on 28.7.1998 when the complainant approached the opposite party the opposite party replied that they were still waiting for the acknowledgement from the consignee. On 18.6.1999 an affidavit was filed by G.V. Satyanarayana, Net Work Executive, Desk to Desk and Cargo Ltd., Dondaparty, Visakhapatnam stating that he was a new executive and earlier due to change of franchise letter was misplaced and after taking charge he filed affidavit requesting that the ex parte order should be set aside.

From the records we find that the consignment receipt dated 4.7.1998 (Ex. A1) was actually filled by the opposite party and the address of the consignee was written as follows : "The D.I.T.E., Principal, Vomarvally, Srikakulam."

It does not show whether the letter was addressed to Srikakulam town or Srikakulam District. Similarly particulars of the sender contains only door number and Visakhapatnam pin code and hence the address is incomplete.

IN our own judgment Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam v. Sudesh Kumar (Smt.), III (1998) CPJ 440=1998 ALD CONSUMER 106, FA. No. 372/1996, we have observed as follows : "Non-delivery of an article as undertaken by the courier would certainly be deficiency in service and that would be a cause for liability of the courier."

We are also supported by the judgment of Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL World Wide Express, II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)=1996 (4) SCC 704, wherein the Supreme Court observed that if the consignee signed the document which contained the terms and conditions normally parties would be bound by such contract. However, in the present case the consignment voucher was not signed by the consignee/respondent and hence she could not be bound by the terms of the voucher limiting damages to Rs. 100/- only. In the absence of original cover given by the respondent or any evidence to show what was the actual address given by her we agree with the District Forum that if the application was not delivered the fault lies only with the opposite party. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. As per our order dated 29.11.1999 the appellant deposited in State Commission Rs. 6,315/-. The amount included Rs. 15/- paid by the complainant, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with 15% interest from 27.8.1999 till 20.12.1999 and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the same. Appeal dismissed.