INDU COURIERS (P) LTD. vs VAIRAVAN

THE appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore dated 8.7.92 in O.P.63/92. THE opposite party is the appellant.

THE complainant sent through the first opposite party on 7.12.90 from Coimbatore a parcel containing 100 shares to M/s. Asian Can & Co., New Delhi. THE consignment was not delivered. Hence the complaint for compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,000/- by way of loss and damages. The opposite party contended that the District Forum at Coimbatore had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It also denied the liability for the claim.

The District Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party, held that there was deficiency of service and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,000/- as damages and Rs. 250/- as costs. Hence this appeal.

THE first point urged is that as per Exhibit A1, Way Bill under which the consignment sent from Coimbatore to New Delhi through the opposite party, the jurisdiction for any action is the Civil Court at Salem where the headquarters of the opposite party is situated and hence this complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Coimbatore is not maintainable. We have little hesitation in rejecting this contention. THE condition in Exhibit A1, Way Bill is not binding and does not prevent the complainant from taking action under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum, Coimbatore where part of the cause of action has arisen as it is the place from where the consignment has been booked. This point is found against the appellant. It is the case of the complainant that he sent 100 shares for transfer and the consignment has not been delivered to the consignee. The opposite party has not filed even a scrap of paper to show that the consignment was in fact delivered to the consignee. There is also no reason why the complainant should file a false complaint when the consignment had duly been delivered to the consignee. The District Forum has therefore rightly held that the consignment had not been delivered and there was deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

THE complainant has claimed as loss Rs. 10,000/- being the value of the shares, but the Forum below has rightly rejected this claim, for the complainant could always get duplicate shares. It was therefore pleased to grant nominal compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the mental pain and agony suffered. THE amount awarded cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. We therefore find no ground to interfere with the said order. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Appeal dismissed. _______________