DESK TO DESK COURIER SERVICE vs VADILAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, Chittoor in CDC 412/94, whereby it directed the opposite parties i.e. Manager, M/s. Desk to Desk Courier Service, Chittoor and General Manager, M/s. Desk to Desk Courier Service, Bangalore to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2.500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 6.8.93 till the date of realisation, Rs. 20,000/- towards damages and Rs. 250/- towards costs, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

IT is alleged in the complaint that M/s. Gerald Me. Donald Company, London placed an order with the complainant''s Head Office on 27.9.1993 and the Head Office instructed the complainant on 4.8.1993 to send Mango pulp samples to M/s. Gerald Mc. Donald Company. Having been informed about the efficient services rendered by Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo service, the complainant approached the Chittoor Branch of the opposite parties and having discussed the matter with the first opposite party for sending mango pulp on 6.8.93 the complainant handed over the samples of Totapuri Mango Pulp and paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards freight charges for transporting samples to be delivered to M/s. Gerald Mc. Donald Company, London. But the complainant received a communication from the Head Office on 6.9.1993 stating that the consignment had not reached M/s. Gerald Mc. Donald Company, London and asked the complainant to check up with the opposite parties and send another sample to M/s. Gerald Mc. Donald Company on an urgent and top priority basis. On being contacted, the complainant came to know that the sample sent to the London firm on 6.8.1993 had not reached the consignee even by 10.9.1993. The complainant therefore sent another sample through D.H.L. Courier service on 10.9.1993 which reached London on 14.9.1993, itself. But in the meanwhile as the samples sent by the opposite parties were not received by M/s. Gerald Mc. Donald Co. Ltd., London refused to place an order. Alleging that on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant lost the opportunity of securing an order between Rs. 50 to 75 lakhs of mango pulp, the complaint was filed for refund of Rs. 2,500/- being freight charges with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 32,735/- towards telephone charges, Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs. 2,000/- for boarding and lodging, Rs. 50,000/- towards damages, mental agony and physical strain, Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of reputation in export circles and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.

No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. Exs. A-l to A-10 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs. B-l to B-5 were marked on behalf of the opposite paties.

THE District Forum held that the opposite parties have acted in negligent manner when they accepted international consignment and received the consignment charges without taking the required declaration forms from the complainant and consequently the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant. It found that there is no material adduced by the complainant in proof of spending Rs. 32,735/- towards telephone charges, Rs. 5,000/- towards transport and Rs. 2,000/- towards boarding and lodging charges and also loss of reputation Rs. 4 lakhs and hence it rejected the above claims. But however, it directed refund of Rs. 2,500/-towards freight charges paid by the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs. 20.000/- towards damages and Rs. 250/- towards costs. In this appeal, preferred by the opposite parties it is submitted that the complainant did not file the declaration forms which were required for sending the goods for foreign countries and the delay was caused due to that. But the opposite parties accepted the consignment without insisting on the complainant furnishing the necessary declaration forms. But the complainant furnished declaration B and the opposite parties have not produced any form to show Ex. B-l cannot be acted upon. We are therefore satisfied that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties amounting to deficiency of service.

IT is next submitted that the complainant is entitled to only payment of Rs.100/-according to the terms and conditions of the invoice. But it is to be seen from the allegations in the complaint that the complainant contacted the Chittoor Branch of the opposite party and discussed the matter with the first opposite party for sending mango pulp sample to M/s. Gerald Mc. Donald, London. IT is therefore clear that the opposite party No. 1 was aware that the mango pulp samples were being sent. When the opposite party No. 1 was aware of the value of the sample, it is not open to them to contend that they are liable to pay only Rs. 100/-. IT is next submitted that the damages of Rs. 20,000/- awarded is excessive. It is no doubt that there is no material produced to show that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.20,000/-. But it is to be seen that having regard to all the circumstances of the case that as the complainant missed the opportunity of securing an order for quite high amount and on losing the said opportunity the Production Manager and Executive who represented the complainant Company must have suffered mental agony. We, therefore, consider it appropriate that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- may be paid by way of compensation for mental agony instead of Rs. 20,000/-. We accordingly modify the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount of damages from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Production Manager and Executive of the complainant Company. We confirm the order of the District Forum with regard to costs. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Order modified.