RAJNISH RATI vs SADHU RAM JINDAL

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 24.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for payment of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand) along with interest @ 12% and cost of litigation of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred).

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant has booked a parcel on 27.8.2001, which was containing valuable clothes worth Rs. 9,000/-. THE parcel was not received in Gujarat. Several letters issued. Lastly on 19.6.2002, the complainant gave a notice. It was not replied and then he filed the complaint. The parcel was booked from opposite party No. 1. Its Head Office is at Delhi, opposite party No. 2 and Zonal Office is at Dehradun, opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written objections. He admitted the booking of the parcel and alleged that at the time of booking, the price of the articles was not disclosed nor there was any insurance. It was further alleged that it is incorrect to say that the articles were worth Rs. 9,000/-. It was further alleged that the complainant is entitled to compensation only of Rs. 100/-.

After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Forum held that weight of the articles was written as 250 gms but according to the complainant there were two suits in the parcel, one worth Rs. 8,000/- and the other worth Rs. 1,000/-. The learned Forum held that the conditions may be written in small letters in the receipt but it cannot be presumed that the complainant knew about conditions of the booking. The learned Forum thereafter allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved by that order the present appeal has been filed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is true that the price of the articles has not been disclosed in the consignment. It is further true that weight has been written as 250 gms but it is still true that the courier service has specifically printed on the receipt that our liability for any loss or damage to the shipment is limited to Rs. 100/- only. The complainant has only alleged that he did not know this condition. WE are to be governed by the rulings of the National Commission and the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held in the ruling reported in II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC), Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier, where the complainant has booked documents through the courier to his customer. Documents did not reach the destination. In this case the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in Anson''s Law of Contract, 24th Edition at page 152, on exemption clause with regard to notice of a printed clause, it was stated that a person who signs a document containing contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them and even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect. But if the document is not signed, being merely delivered to him, then the question arises whether the terms of the contract were adequately brought to his notice? It was further held that when a party to the conctract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumsntances in which he came to sign the documents need to be established. It was further held that when there is specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by terms in the contract. In this particular case, photocopy of the booking receipt has been filed. It has been signed by the complainant, therefore, he cannot take a plea that he did not know the terms in the contract. It is true if the price of the articles was not disclosed at the time of booking and if the articles were not insured, then both the parties are negligent but when the liability has been limited only to the extent of Rs. 100/- only, we cannot help it. Similarly in the ruling reported in III (1996) CPJ 156 (NC), Airpak International Pvt. Ltd. v. K.P. Nanu & Anr., it has been held on the basis of various rulings that District Forum and State Commission were not justified in awarding more compensation than have been settled by the parties in terms of the agreement.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in III (1995) CPJ 188, Ramman Mohd. v. M/s DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division, in which it was held that the printing is not always visible to human eyes and there is nothing to show that the terms were accepted by the complainant but we are sorry that this ruling cannot overwrite the effect of the ruling given by the National Commission. THE net result is that in terms of the agreement, the complainant is entitled to only to Rs. 100/- for the loss of the articles but it is a consumer dispute. THE articles were sent to a relation. THEy did not reach the consignee. Definitely there is deficiency in service and mental loss and agony and in view of deficiency in service, mental agony and pain, inconvenience, insult in the relation, the complainant is entitled to compensation beyond what has been agreed between the parties in case of loss in the receipt. In the receipt, there is no such agreement for these types of compensations. In the receipt the compensation is only in respect of loss. For mental pain and agony, insult, etc. the complainant must get separate compensation. In our view a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) shall meet the ends of justice. We are supported by the ruling reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC), Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, in which there is specific provision for grant of separate compensation for these injuries to the complainant. THE complainant has unnecessarily been put to litigation, therefore, the order of cost is also justified. As a result, the order under appeal is to be modified as under. The complainant shall get a cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as ordered by the learned Forum besides he will get Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for loss of articles in terms of the agreement and he will further get a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) for mental pain and agony, etc. and these amounts should be paid within a month from today, failing which the complaianant shall get interest on these amounts @ 12% from the date of institution of the complaint before the learned Forum till the actual date of payment. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.