M.M. COURIER SERVICE-O.P. vs MITHILESH BANSAL

CROSS Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Forum, Kota in Complaint Case No. 22/92 decided on 22.9.1992.

BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeals are that complainant, Smt. Mithilesh Bansal filed a complaint for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that she sent a form pertaining to allotment of land in Chitrakoot Yojna with draft of Rs. 8,000/- by a Courier service on 23.10.1991. The said docurnent was to be delivered to her relative Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Chartered Accountant, Jaipur. The last date for submission of form with J.D.A., Jaipur was 31.10.91. The complainant has stated that the Opposite Party M/s M.M. Courier Service had promised her for delivery of her letter on 25.10.91. When she enquired from Shri Goyal, she came to know that her letter was not delivered, she approached the Courier Service on 2.11.91 who returned her the envelope containing the form and the draft of Rs. 8,000/- As the application form of the complainant could not reach in J.D.A., Jaipur, she was deprived of a chance of getting a plot in Chitrakoot Yojna. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kota.

M/s. M.M. Couriers in their reply stated that the complainant herself did not deliver the envelope as such she is not a consumer. It was further stated by the respondent that as a matter of fact he received the envelope from M/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre, Kota for onward delivery to Jaipur. The addresses was Ashok Kumar Goyal. Since the envelope could not be delivered in view of incomplete address the same was returned.

THE District Forum accepted the plea that address written on the letter by the complainant was incomplete and as such it may be possible that it could not be delivered to the addressee but held that the undelivered article was not returned to the complainant on 25.10.91 or 26.10.91 and she was deprived of sending the form to the J.D.A. before 31.10.91 and as such she could not avail the opportunity of having a plot in Chitrakoot Yojana. THE District Forum awarded Rs. 110/- towards loss of expenses and Rs. 3,000/- towards damages. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.9.92 both the parties have preferred appeals.

M/s. M.M. Courier Service has based its appeal on following grounds:- (1) That as the article was delivered to the appellant by A/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre, Kota and the sender''s name was mentioned as R.K. Bansal, from the above admitted facts, complainant cannot be termed as consumer, either Roop Varsha Sari Centre can be consumer or Shri R.K. Bansal but not the complainant.

(2) Because the District Forum has wrongly mentioned that when the article was not delivered to the addressee then it ought to have been returned to the owner within reasonable time that is 25.10.91 or at the most 26.1091, but in fact the appellant redeliverd to Roop Varsha Sari Centre. On 26.10.91 Shri R.K. Bansal received it and put the date 12.11.91 on the challan No. 8506 by which the article was redelivered.

(3) That on the back of the receipt given bythe Appellant it has been clearly mentioned in condition No. 2 that the maximum liability of the courier is Rs. 100/- only per kg/per article.

The complainant Smt. Mithilesh Bansal, aggrieved by the judgment of District Forum has also filed an Appeal No. 61/93. The main grounds of this appeal are as such:- (1) That the award given by the District Forum Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 100/- as damages totalling Rs. 3,100/- is insufficient in every respect. She has been permanently debarred from getting a chance for allotment of plot in Chitrakoot Yojna. Though the District Forum has held that the complainant has lost a golden opportunity by not inclusion of her name in lottery, yet it presumed it a mere possibility of getting a house, which she lost due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

(2) That the District Forum is not right in holding that the address written on envelope by the complainant was not proper as there was no house number written on it. The addressee is a well known person in the area and holding that regular postman may be well conversant with the area but it should be expected from Courier Service.

We gave full consideration on arguments adduced by both the appellants. 7. It is very clear from the photostat copy of envelope produced by the Complainant that the sender''s address written on it as:- Mithilesh, R.K. Bansal, K.R. 182, Civil Lines, Kota. The address of addressee is as such:- Ashok Kumar Goyal, C.A., C/O Chitarmal Goyal, Ajab Ghar Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar, Jaipur. On the left corner of the envelope it is noted as 8506 R+l Please sent after writing the house number tried much nobody knows.

On the back portjon of the envelope it is mentioned that this post was sent back to Roop Varsha on 26.10.91, but they refused to take back Sd/26.10.91. On the left side senders name is noted as R.K. Bansal, K.R. 182, Civil Lines, Kota C/o Roop Varsha Rampura: The receipt No. 8506 dated 23.10.91 by which the Opposite Party charged Rs. 3/- is in the name of R.K. Bansal only. It is very clear from perusal of the envelope (P.C.) that tliere is no mention of Roop Varsha Sari Centre on the front portion of the envelope. On the receipt no address of R.K. Bansal is noted. On the back portion the address of Roop Varsha came. M/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre is no party in this complaint. It cannot be presumed that the Opposite Party returned back the envelope to M/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre, and its refulsal to accept cannot be presumed to the refusal of Bansal family. The address of Mithilesh Bansal and R.K. Bansal was clearly written. On refusal from M/s. Roop Varsha Centre the Opposite Party should have directly sent the envelope to sender.

IN appeal M/s. Courier Service have raised anew plea that in fact they returned back the envelope on 26.10.91 to M/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre but Mr. R.K. Bansal was deliberately put the date 12.11.91 under his signature on challan No. 8506. This plea was not raised in reply filed by the Opposite Party M/s. Courier Service in complaint case. On the back of envelope it is noted that on 26.10.91 Mr. Roop Varsha Sari Centre have refused to accept the letter while on the other hand in appeal the appellant is raising this new plea. It is not tenable.

THOUGH the address written on envelope of the addressee is complete, the District Forum, for not mentioning the number of house, has been bit doubtful for holding the Opposite Party fully liable for delivery of the article to the addressee. The District Forum has held responsible to the Opposite Party for not returning back the envelope in time. Had the Opposite Party would have returned back the envelope in time on 25 or 26.10.1991 the complainant may have other venues to send the same to Jaipur in time. The District Forum has held the Opposite Party fully responsible on the point. We do not see any ground to interfere on District Forum''s decision on this point. The appellant M/s. M.M. Courier Service have reasserted that the complainant was not a consumer. The appellant received the article by M/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre, Rampura Kota and the senders name was mentioned as R.K. Bansal.

On perusal of the (P.C.) of the envelope it is clear that where senders name is written, it is clearly written as Mithilesh, R.K. Bansal, Civil Lines, Kota. The senders have nowhere written the name of M/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre. In complaint also there is nowhere mentioned the name of Roop Varsha Sari Centre. It only alleges that he received the envelope from M/s. Roop Varsha Sari Centre. It is evident that both husband and wife went to the Opposite Party''s office and handed over the envelope for despatch. Looking to the senders name where none of both Mithilesh and R.K. Bansal was written heJssued the receipt slip only in name of R.K. Bansal. Thus it cannot be said that Smt. Mithilesh Bansal is a third party.

M/s. M.M. Courier Service have produced a newspaper cutting of Hindustan dated 27.8.93 wherein the National Commission accepting the appeal of Clik Air Couriers and forwards limited has held that the complainant has not paid any charge for sending the packet. The packet was sent through Navodaya Enterprises. In the present case facts are although different. Here both wife and husband deposited the packet them self along with Rs. 3/- as charge. The Courier Co. only issued the receipt in the name of husband. The wife Smt. Mithilesh is the sender as well as beneficiary. The appellant Smt. Mithilesh in her support has cited National Commission''s decision in M/s. Skypack Couriers Pvt. Ltd. v. Anupama Bagla, I (1992) CPJ 84 (NC), where it has been held that the respondent was denied of her chance of getting admission. Thus the complainant was thus put serious hardship and loss by reason of neglect and failure on the part of Courier to deliver the article entrusted to them for carriage. This clearly constitutes ''deficiency'' in service of the appellant which had been hired by the respondent for consideration.

IT is very clear in the present case that M.M. Couriers Service was hired by both Mithilesh and R.K. Bansal. Due to deficiency in services the appellant Mithilesh lost a chance of her name to be included in the lottery drawn. Though it was not certain that her name will be in the list of allottees as a result of lottery. But there was a chance, which she lost due to deficiency in service on the part of Courier Service. We see no reason to accept the appeal of M/s. Courier Service. Hence it is dismissed. The District Forum awarded Rs. 110/- towards loss of expenses and Rs. 3,000/- towards damages. Looking to the facts of the case we feel that Rs. 10,000/- should be awarded as damages to the complainant and Rs. 100/- as proceedings. To this extent appeal of Mithilesh Bansal is accepted. Appeal of M.M. Courier Service dismissed.