Madhur Courier Services vs R.S.Pande

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 23.9.1997 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur in their Case No. 32/1997, wherein the District Forum directed the opposite party - Madhur Courier to pay an amount of Rs. 19,000/- within two months from the date of order and Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings with further directions that in default the opposite party shall pay 12% interest over the amount of Rs. 19,000/- after the expiry of two months from the date of order.

HEARD the arguments of both the parties and perused the records of the case. The main argument of the appellant is that according to receipt issued by the appellant to the respondent, the appellant''s liability is restricted only upto Rs. 100/- as mentioned on the back side of the receipt and the respondent had accepted this condition. The District Forum has stated that since the receipt does not bear signature of the consignor the conditions mentioned in the receipt are not binding upon him. On this point, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC), has held as under : "On exemption clause with regard to notice of a printed clause, it was stated that a person who signs a document containing contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them, and even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect. But if the document is not signed, being merely delivered to him, then the question arises: whether the terms of the contract were adequately brought to his notice? The terms of the contract have elaborately been considered and decided. The details thereof are not necessary for us to pursue. It is seen that when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, that normally parties are bound by such contract; it is for the party to establish exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances in which he came to sign the documents need to be established. The question we need to consider is : whether the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission could go behind the terms of the contract? It is true, as contended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, that in an appropriate case, the Tribunal without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant remedy. But each case depends upon it own facts. In an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to original Civil Court established under the CPC or appropriate State law to have the claims decided between the parties. But when there is a specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by the terms in the contract".

In the instant case it is an undisputed fact that the receipt issued by the appellant, marked Ex. P/3 does not bear signature of consignor and, therefore, the liability of the appellant-Courier Service will not be limited to Rs. 100/- as argued by the appellant.

NEXT point for consideration is whether the packet delivered by consignee to the appellant contained the gift coupons or not. The appellant has not denied that the packet did not contain the said coupons. Here the appellant in his appeal has stated that weight of the packet was only 50 grams whereas the coupon presented by the complainant before the District Forum is so thick that it weighs about 3 grams and, therefore, weight of 125 coupons should have been 375 grams and therefore the said packet could not have contained 125 coupons. The appellant has failed to see that the document which the appellant says as coupon and of which the weight according to him is 3 grams is not gift coupon, it is actually a part of the packet containing medicines alongwith "gift coupon inside". That means gift coupon must have been on ordinary paper and, therefore, this expression of doubt by the appellant is not worth consideration. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.