HERMAN MIT SINGH vs SPEEDMAN EXPRESS

ON a complaint instituted by Shri Herman Mit Singh of Chandigarh, the District Forum-II, Chandigarh ordered on 4.1.1999 that the respondents were liable to refund Rs. 30/- as the charges of courier and a further sum of Rs. 100/- as compensation totalling Rs. 130/- and costs Rs. 1,100/-. The complainant considers it meagre. This appeal has been attempted for enhancement.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant entrusted his application form on 5.5.1997 to Speed man Express for delivery of the admission application to Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal (Punjab) so as to reach on or before 6.5.1997. The respondents couriers failed to deliver the application form on 6.5.1997and in fact thereafter as well. The Speedman Express and their local branch, respondent did not appear nor they contested the complaint. After perusal of the evidence brought on record by the complainant, the District Forum rightly held the respondents liable. Here the question is regarding enhancement of amount awarded as compensation. In Clause 6 of the terms and conditions printed on the back of the receipt it has specifically been mentioned that the liability shall not exceed Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per consignment. Even if the letter was not at all delivered as in this case the compensation in such a case could not exceed Rs. 100/-. In this regard our attention has also been invited to Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Limited, II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court observed that the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties is to be considered in awarding the amount for deficiency in service. On behalf of the appellant our attention has been drawn to Prof. R. Shanmugasundaram v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 1997 (2) CPC, where in view of a clause, in the agreement the complainant was not held entitled to any compensation from vendor for any defect in construction. In the aforesaid case it appears that at a subsequent stage the officer of the Board had agreed to remove the defects and for removal of the defects the complainant was entitled to a particular compensation, the facts and circumstances were distinguishable, even if the candidate could not secure admission on account of the aforesaid delay so far as the relief which the complainant could get as a consumer viz-a-viz the respondent could not exceed Rs. 130/- and the costs Rs. 1,100/- awarded by the District Forum. However, the appellant shall have the liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law. The conclusion is that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.