MANOJ KUMAR SONKAR vs FIRST FLIGHT COURIERS PVT. LTD.

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and orders dated 14.3.2000, passed by District Consumer Forum, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 118 of 1996. The facts of the case are as follows :

THE complainant Manoj Kumar Sonkar had applied for Medical Entrance Examination 1996. For this purpose he sent his application form on 18.4.1996 to Dr. R.S. Bansal, Registrar (C.P.M.T.), Sri Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, U.P. along with the bank draft against the fee paid for examination. THE said papers were sent through the opposite party but the opposite party never confirmed the acknowledgement of the application form and other documents by the University. THE complainant approached the opposite party time and again to ensure that the mail sent by the courier company, the opposite party, was duly received by the University but no proper reply was given. After 48 days on 5.6.1996 the opposite party returned the said mail sent to the University to the complainant with an endorsement by the University to the effect that the University has refused to accept the mail by courier. In case the mail so sent through courier had been returned to the complainant in time then he could have availed the opportunity of filing another application form with the University with late fee and additional demand draft, the last date of which was 27.4.1996. Because of this delay on the part of the opposite party, the complainant was deprived of participation in the examination on 8.6.1996 and 9.6.1996. THE complainant had made all preparation for the competition and this deficiency on the part of opposite party resulted into loss of one year in addition to the fact that he could not prepare for his B.Sc. examination also. THE complainant lodged a claim before the District Forum for a compensation of Rs. 1.00 lac. The opposite party before District Consumer Forum took the stand that the consignee had refused to take the consignment on the ground that only registered letters were to be accepted and since the consignee refused to take the mail sent by the opposite party the consignment was delivered back to the courier company on 22.4.1996 but the address of the complainant (sender) was incomplete and the letter could not be delivered to him on 23.6.1996. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party.

The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties decreed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. For failure in making the payment within the period of two months interest @ 15% p.a. was also payable to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED of this order of District Consumer Forum the complainant has come in the appeal. In the memo of appeal it has been stated that the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Forum does not meet the losses caused to the complainant as the action of opposite party resulted into loss of one year in the career of the complainant and, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 1 lac should have been given by the Forum. Notice was issued in the month of June, 2000 to the respondent for disposal of appeal on 13.3.2001. The notice has not come back unserved and, therefore, sufficient service is presumed on the respondent. The respondent did not turn up on the date fixed which was 13.3.2001. Ex-parte hearing was done and arguments of the complainant Sri Manoj Kumar Sonkar were heard. Sri Manoj Kumar argued that he had applied for admission in the medical entrance test and the documents were sent to the University''s Registrar through courier well in time. These documents were not received by the Registrar and returned to the courier. The courier opposite party held up those documents for 48 days which resulted into failure of the complainant to make necessary formalities for making fresh application and in the process he lost one complete year. He has further argued that during the next year he appeared for the medical entrance test examination and was successful and is studying in Kanpur Medical College. In case his application from, etc. sent through courier had been received back in time he would have applied and he could have been selected during the same year and this way he lost one year for the course.

A perusal to the documents in file goes to show that the opposite party received the consignment to be sent to University Registrar and the documents so sent were returned by the University as the University did not accept any other mail except the registered post. In that event the opposite party courier company should have immediately delivered the returned letter to the complainant. Before the District Consumer Forum the opposite party took the stand that the address of the complainant was incomplete and the person sent for delivery of the returned letter could not find the complainant. As a matter of fact the courier company should have noted the full address of the consignor and consignee. The courier company failed to do so which is apparent from the judgment and order of the Forum and the papers filed before the same Forum. It appears that the opposite party took the consignment without bothering the consequences. The letter was returned by the consignee and when it was returned the opposite party could not deliver it to the complainant for want of complete address. Thus the fault was of the courier company. The returned letter was delivered to the complainant on 5.6.1996 after a lapse of 48 days. Therefore, there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party which resulted into loss to the complainant. The District Forum while decreeing the complaint allowed a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- only which in our opinion was quite inadequate keeping in view the circumstances of the case. The complainant Manoj Kumar Sonkar was preparing for M.B.B.S. Entrance Examination and in the process he could not study for B.Sc. and it was only next year that he appeared for M.B.B.S. Entrance Examination and after becoming successful in the admission test he was admitted to Kanpur Medical College. Thus the argument of the complainant has ample force that he could have been admitted in M.B.B.S. Course in case the papers delivered to the courier had been returned in time to him so that he could have again tried for filling the application form, etc. In the process the delay of one year adversely affected his carrier prospects. In the circumstances, the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the District Forum was quite inadequate as the period of one year was lost because of deficiency in service of the opposite party. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded deserves to be increased to Rs. 10,000/- and the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum needs to be modified to this extent and the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. ORDER Appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that the opposite party shall pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. For non-compliance of the order interest @ 15% p.a. shall also be payable. The judgment and order of the District Forum is modified to this extent. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal partly allowed.