Manager A N L Parcel Services Private Limited vs G Sudhakar Reddy

WE heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. Counsel for the respondent is represented by Miss Tejomaya. She seeks adjournment, but we refused. When the matter came up on 8.2.1999, neither the Counsel for the appellants nor the Counsel for the respondent were present. Then we perused the papers and the record of the District Forum and finally posted the matter for orders to 11.2.1999, as we found that the questions raised were covered by our order in R.V.N.S. Murthy and Anr. v. Desk to Desk Courier & Cargo and Anr., III (1998) CPJ 349 = 1998 ALD (Consumer.) 155 Time was sought on behalf of the respondent and we posted the matter to this day i.e., 15.2.1999. In the circumstances, adjournment is refused.

THIS is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties in CDC No. 162/1996 questioning the order of the Chittoor District Forum in that CDC dated 12.3.1998 allowing that CDC in part. The complainant before the District Forum is the respondent before us. The facts are in a very brief compass. The complainant, a share broker, entrusted a cover containing the share certificates of a total value of Rs. 14,135/ - and two demand drafts for Rs. 18,000/ - each to the appellants on 4.6.1995 under a Courier Consignment Note No. 19812958 (marked as Ex. A -1) for delivery to one Gulam Hussain at Hyderabad. The complainant learnt after about four days that the cover containing the share certificates and two demand drafts was not received by the consignee. After the complainant gave a written complaint on 18.6.1995 (marked as Ex. A -3) the 2nd appellant gave reply dated 12.7.1995 (marked as Ex. A -4) admitting that the cover was misplaced in transit and inspire of attempts made to trace out it could not be traced. The District Forum found on the basis of the material placed before it that so far as the demand drafts were concerned duplicate drafts could be obtained, but as regards share certificates the appellants should bear the loss. On that basis the District Forum directed the appellants to pay to the complainant Rs. 14,135/ - with interest @ 18% per annum from 20.6.1995 till the date of realisation, Rs. 500/ - towards correspondence charges, Rs. 5,000/ - towards damages and also Rs. 500/ - towards costs.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC) = 1996 4 SCC 704 the District Forum erred in awarding more than Rs. 100/ - to the complainant. But in the present case we find that the Consignment Note was not signed by the complainant and therefore the terms and conditions therein are not binding on the complainant. We so held in R. V.N.S. Murthy and Anr. v. Desk To Desk Courier & Cargo And Anr. (supra). In that case the Consignment Note was not signed by the consignor and under those circumstances we held that the consignor was not bound by the terms and conditions of the Consignment Note and that the amount of compensation payable for the loss of consignment need not be restricted to Rs. 100/ -. The question that arises then is what would be reasonable compensation for the loss of the cover containing the share certificates and the demand drafts? So far as demand drafts are concerned, the District Forum rightly held that as duplicate demand drafts were obtained, no loss was suffered by the complainant; but so far as the share certificates are concerned, the District Forum directed the appellants to make good their value given as Rs. 14,135/ - together with interest @ 18% per annum from 20.6.1995. Going through the record of the District Forum and the material placed before the District Forum, we find that the District Forum was not right in awarding the value of the shares covered by the share certificates lost. The detail of the share certificates and the shares covered by them are given in the complaint as follows : 1. The United Western Bank Limited (S.R. Sharma, TPT) 118875 100 10,310.00 2. Sri Sarita Synthetics Ltd. (Kumar of Triupati) 122917/18 200 1,325.00 3. Rassi Finance Limited (B.M. Gangadhar of Madanapalli) 3277 100 1,000.00 4. M Diagonistic (Jayarami Reddy, TPT) 64844 100 1,000.00

VIDEOCON Narmada (S.R. Sharma, TPT) 1778191 50 500.00 14,135.00 It was stated in the complaint as follows : ''The complainant further submits that, he also tried his best to trace the share certificates through correspondence with the above companies and also approached investors grievance Forum., but all in vain. The complainant paid the value of the above share certificates to the above investors to a tune of Rs. 14,135/ - in the month of July, 1995 and encashed demand drafts in the month of September, 1995 by obtaining duplicate drafts ¦ ¦ ¦..'' The complaint had filed by various copies of letters addressed by him to the five companies informing them of the shares lost and requesting them not to transfer those shares if anybody sent the relevant share certificates for transfer. The complainant also filed letter dated 4.7.1995 received from the United Western Bank Limited acknowledging the receipt of the letter dated 9.6.1995 addressed by the complainant and stating as follows : ''We may inform you that while every care would be taken to ensure that no transfer, if presented, covering these shares is proceeded with, without prior notice to you, the Bank cannot hold itself responsible should it be overlooked through pressure of work or otherwise. It may please be noted that in case the shares with a properly executed transfer deed are lodged with us, the Bank cannot, under law, refuse to register or unduly delay registration of the transfer unless restrained by a Court order. Therefore, it would be advisable in your own interest to have a restrained order served upon us by a competent Court prohibiting us from giving effect to any transfer relating to the shares in question.'' There is also the letter addressed by the Medinova Diagonistic Services Ltd. acknowledging the receipt of letter dated 9.6.1995 of the complainant and stating as follows : ''Since we cannot put stop transfer unless there is a valid document, we enclose herewith an affidavit -cum -indemnity bond for arranging issue of duplicate share certificates which you may please fill in and send to us, so that we can take necessary action.'' But the complainant had not filed any material to establish that he paid the value of the shares to the investors. He had also not filed any affidavit to that effect. If share certificates are lost the original share holders can get duplicate share certificates. It may be that certain formalities like furnishing indemnity bonds, will be involved. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants cannot have Rs. 14,135/ -. However the complainant will have to be compensated for the harassment caused to him and the expenditure he had to incur for correspondence and compensation for the mental agony suffered by him. Therefore we are of the view that a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/ - towards damages and Rs. 500/ - towards costs would meet the ends of justice. In other respects the order of the District Forum is set aside. Pursuant to our orders in FAIA No. 640/1998 dated 2.7.1998 the appellants deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - before this Commission by way of pay order dated 15.7.1998. The respondent would be entitled to withdraw Rs. 5,500/ - from out of the said sum. On an application made by the respondent/complainant, Mr. G. Sudhakar Reddy, s/o Sidda Reddy, the Registrar shall issue a cheque for Rs. 5,500/ - to the respondent/ complainant. It is open to the appellants to take back the balance sum of Rs. 14,500/ - (Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred only). The appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed. - ===========================================================================