MANAGER, SKYPAK AGENCY vs K.K. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Pathanamthitta in O.P. 154/91. The opposite parties are the appellants.

ON 7.2.1991 complainant entrusted with the Thiruvalla office of M/s. Skypak a cover addressed to one Mr. V.C. Thomas, Hindustan Motors Ltd. Motor P.O. Hoogly (District) West Bengal. It is alleged that the cover contained a demand draft for Rs. 1,90,000/- favouring Messrs. Dewara Garage and a letter to the addressee asking him to hand over the draft to the payee and to arrange purchase of a new Ambassador Car. It is the case of the complainant that the 1st opposite party agreed to hand over the cover to the addressee at Hoogly on 8.2.1991. But the cover did not reach the addressee as agreed. Complainant contacted the Thiruvella and Kottayam Offices of M/s. Skypak when he received communications regarding the non-receipt of the cover entrusted with the opposite party for delivery. At last the cover reached the addressee on 7.3.1991. It is in those circumstances the complainant claims compensation. The opposite parties filed their versions admitting the receipt of the packet addressed to Mr. V.C. Thomas. The delayed delivery of the article is also not denied. However, it was contended that the delivery areas for domestic consignments have been divided into two zones at the destination, viz. normal delivery area (city limit) and diplomatic area and that for the delivery in diplomatic area the company used to collect extra service charge depending upon the distance. Calcutta is a normal delivery area whereas Hoogly which is 100 K.M. away from the office of the company in Calcutta is a diplomatic area. The destination point being a diplomatic area the company is entitlted to realise Rs. 250 as diplomatic charges. It was also contended that the complainant did not pay them the diplomatic charges of Rs. 250/- and when the complainant was told about the additional charges at the time of entrustment he agreed to pay the amount within a few hours. Calcutta Office withheld the consignment under intimation to the opposite party since the diplomatic charges were not paid by the complainant. Finally at the risk of Kottayam Manager the delivery was effected.

The District Forum found that the con signment note issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant shows that the complainant paid Rs. 65/- to the opposite party, and it does not say anything about the additional payment. It also observed that there is no evidence to show that at any time, demand was made for payment of diplomatic charges. It is also pointed out by the District Forum that if in fact the consignment was withheld by the Calcutta Office for want of payment of diplomatic charges, there would be some correspondence to substantiate that fact. However nothing was forthcoming. The above reasoning is convincing. In the circumstances there cannot be any doubt that there is deficiency in service. The opposite parties had produced a consignment note which contains the printed terms of the agreement, and a photostat copy of the terms of carriage which say that the liability of the opposite party is restricted to Rs.1000/-. The District Forum took the view that the complainant was not bound by the terms mentioned above as he has not signed the consignment form. It does not appear that those terms were brought to his notice. Delivery of the cover was delayed and the opposite party could not utilise the vehicle as taxi and he suffered mental agony. However taking into consideration of all the facts we feel that the award of Rs. 5000/- is on the high side. We modify the order reducing compensation from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 3000/-. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Order modified.