Origin Courier Service vs Ms. Harpreet Kaur

THE respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. The complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste category, after passing 10+2 examination, appeared in the Punjab Medical Entrance Test, 2004 and got 59th rank in her category. The result was declared on the Internet on 2.8.2004 and report card was received on 10.8.2004 by post. The application with bank draft for Rs. 500 and necessary documents were sent through the petitioner on 11.8.2004 at 9.30 a.m. on payment of Rs. 25 as the expenses for delivery at Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. The petitioner had specifically undertaken to deliver the application and documents to the addressee on 12.8.2004 itself and the receipt was to be made available to the complainant on 14.8.2004. The complainant went to the office of the petitioner to get the receipt but the matter was put off on every occasion till 16.8.2004.

SHE reached Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot on 17.8.2004 for counselling along with her parents but was shocked to learn that her name was missing from the list of eligible candidates as her application had not reached the office of Baba Farid University by the stipulated date and time i.e., by 5.00 p.m. on 13.8.2004. As there were 90 seats for scheduled caste category and having secured 59th rank, she was sure to get admission in the MBBS course in the Medical College of her choice but due to the deficiency in service of the petitioner, she did not get admission. Therefore, she filed a complaint before the District Forum.

THE District Forum passed an order awarding a sum of Rs. one lakh for loss of one year delay apart from Rs. 50,000 for mental shock, agony and cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.

THE State Commission reduced the compensation from Rs. 1.5 lakh to Rs. 50,000. As the petitioner had deposited Rs. 25,000 with the State Commission as a statutory requirement, the State Commission directed that this amount may be paid to the complainant and the petitioner was directed to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 25,000 within two weeks of the receipt of order of the State Commission failing which the petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the District Forum''s order (18.3.2005) till the date of payment.

THOUGH the facts of the case were not in dispute and the State Commission had drastically reduced the compensation, the petitioner has filed this Revision Petition before us.

THIS revision petition has been filed with a delay of 119 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that due to renovation in the office of the Counsel for the petitioner the file of instant case got mixed up with certain decided files and it was traced only after a lot of search in the last week of November, 2008. The reason given is neither convincing nor just. Therefore, this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. Even so we have considered the case on merits.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Bharati Knitting Company v. Dhl worldwide express courier division of airfreight ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC), wherein the liability of the courier service is limited only to the tune of Rs. 100. He submitted that this judgment is applicable to the case on hand. He also showed us the receipt issued by their company wherein it is mentioned that their liability is limited to Rs. 100 per consignment. On the other hand we have perused the document of Origin Courier Service of the petitioner, which was filed, as per our direction dated 9th February 2009, which is quoted as under: "To whom it may concern Certified that C. No. 20684575 dated 11.8.2004 from M/s. Harpreet Kaur, D/o Shri Daljit Singh, R/o H. No. 146, Scctor -8, Krishna Colony, Dasuya, Hoshiarpur, Punjab to the Coordinator PMT 2004 Baba Farid University and Health Sciences, Kakkapura Road, Faridkot was booked at 9.30 a.m. for delivery at Faridkot on 12.7.2004."

THIS is an unequivocal undertaking given by the petitioner to the complainant and it is too late in the day for the petitioner to try to wriggle out of this. If he had not given this undertaking then perhaps he would have got some relief. It is an admitted case that an undertaking was given that the documents would be delivered on 12th August, 2004 but it was only delivered on 17th August, 2004.

ACCORDINGL Y , in view of the undertaking the judgment quoted by the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand.

THOUGH the complainant has lost one precious year, the State Commission has drastically reduced the compensation awarded by the District Forum, even then the petitioner has filed this Revision Petition. The compensation awarded by the State Commission is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this Revision Petition warranting our intervention under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, this Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.