PROFESSIONAL COURIER SERVICE vs Ayyakannu

THE complaint is filed against the courier service. THE complainant''s case is that he sent a demand draft through the opposite party on 28.5.1999 seeking the amount was intended as admission fee for the admission of the complainant''s son in Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. THE amount was not received by the institute. Thus on account of deficiency in service, the opposite party has failed to deliver the letter containing the demand draft. Hence, the present complaint is made.

THE opposite party disputed the liability. THE cover sent by the opposite party was returned on the ground that there is no service area. THE liability of the company is restricted to Rs. 100/- only. THEre is no deficiency in service on their part. The lower Forum accepted the complainant''s case and directed the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 500/- along with a charge of Rs. 35/- collected by the opposite party plus a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards travelling charges and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for hardship and mental agony and Rs. 500/- as costs.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is made.

THE facts are not in controversy. THE amount sent by way of demand draft by the complainant to Birla Institute, Pilani, Rajasthan State was not delivered by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, it was returned on the ground stating that there was no service area. We find from the consignor''s note that the proper address has been given. THE opposite party has received Rs. 35/- as service charges. Thus, there is clear case of deficiency in service. The legal contention raised by the opposite party is that their liability is restricted on account of the condition stipulated. According to the opposite party, in a non-negotiable consignment note, subject to standard condition of carriage carriers'' liability is limited to Rs. 100/- per consignment for any cause. The opposite party has produced record to show that there is such condition and that the complainant is bound by the said condition. On the other hand, a copy of the consignment note produced by the complainant and the original which was produced by the opposite party do not contain any signature of the complainant to show that he has accepted any of the conditions. Further though the consignment note contains such a condition, it is not signed in acceptance by the consignor and the column relating to sender''s signature is found to be blank. Therefore, in such circumstances as there is no such agreement between the parties, the contentions of the opposite party that their liability is limited to Rs. 100/- cannot be accepted at all. Hence, in such circumstances, we do not find any reason to take a different view from that of the lower Forum. Consequently we do not find any merits in this appeal.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/- confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. Appeal dismissed.