Dolphin Courier Service vs Mohavir Trading Company

THIS is an appeal by the opposite party against the direction for compensation passed by the District Forum, Kalahandi.

PLAINTIFF is a businessman in medicines being retail and wholesale dealer. In course of business, it mailed certain documents through the opposite party along with a bank draft for Rs. 10,602.89 paise in favour of Gluconate India Limited at Cuttack. The article which was handed to the opposite party to be delivered at destination was lost in transit. As a result, complainant suffered. Inspite of grievance expressed to opposite party No. 1, when there was no response, the complaint was filed. Opposite party remained ex -parte. After hearing the complainant, District Forum has awarded compensation as follows : (i) Interest on the amount covered under the draft -Rs. 1,143.35 (ii) V.P. letter charges -Rs. 27.00 (iii) Loss of profit -Rs. 676.19 (iv) Loss of reputation and mental agony -Rs. 3,000.00 Rs. 4,846.54 This is grievance of the appellant.

THIS appeal has been filed on 15.1.1992 although order was passed on 2.11.1991. As we find, copy was sent on 11.11.1991 to the parties. From the order -sheet, it is seen that really the copy was not sent. When it was made ready, complainants Advocate Mr. Piadhan received the same on 12.11.1991. The appellant Sri Dipti Ranjan Patnaik received it personally on 5.12.1991. Appeal is to be filed within 30 days. Thus, there is delay of hardly 10 days in the case. For the reasons stated in the petition, delay is condoned subject to payment of cost which shall be included with the compensation to be awarded on merits.

ONCE opp. party has received charges for carrying the articles of the complainant and deliver the same at its destination, a service has been rendered by it. Non -delivery is a shortfall in the service and is accordingly a deficiency in service. In absence of any explanation as to why the article could not be delivered, it can be presumed that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, the District Forum is correct in giving a direction to pay compensation. There is no scope for interference with the same. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, we find that interest awarded on the amount covered under the draft, loss of profit on way of discount allowed and V.P.L. charges are rightly compensated. However, compensation of Rs. 3,000/ - for loss of reputation and mental agony, is not justified.

COMPLAINANT is a partner of the business. There is no reflection in the complaint about the nature of the mental agony sustained by the complainant. It is true that service is to be rendered to the partnership and complainant is a beneficiary of such service being a partner. Accordingly, in absence of further material, there is no scope for coming to the conclusion that he had mental agony. Being a business firm, when there is no free flow of business on account of deficiency in service which is out come of negligence of appellant, it can be assumed that there would be loss of reputation of the firm. Loss of reputation of the firm automatically would attract loss of reputation of its partners. In absence of further materials, a reasonable guess -work can be made and we assess the compensation at Rs. 1,000/ - (Rupees one thousand). The total amount of compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 2,846.54 paise. We make it a round figure of Rs. 3,000/ - , the balance being the cost towards condonation of delay of 10 days.

IN result, the appeal is allowed in part. Appeal allowed in part.