RAMZAN MOHD. vs DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION

THIS complaint has been filed by Ramzan Mohd. against M/s. DHL Worldwide Express Courier claiming a total compensation of Rs. 2,39,000/-.

COMPLAINANT Ramzan Mohd. is a Indian citizen and he had been working in Defence Department of Kuwait Government before the Gulf war. It was in August 1990 that hostility had started in Kuwait, the complainant came back to India alongwith other Indian nationals working there. On 30.5.91 the complainant handed over an envelope to the Opposite Party courier for sending the same to Kuwait. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 450/- to the Opposite Party for the purpose under Receipt No. 14544 dated 30.5.91. However, the envelope was not delivered by the Opposite Party to the addressee at Kuwait. The complainant sent several letters on 21.6.91, 5.7.91. 22.7.91, 31.7.91, 3.8.91 and 8.8.91 to the Opposite Party informing him whether the envelope has been delivered to the addressee at Kuwait. It was on 31.7.91 that the Station Manager of the Opposite Party sent a latter to the complainant informing him that the envelope in question had been sent to Kuwait. However, the Station Manager of the Opposite Party in India had been informed as late as on 31.7.91 by the Kuwait office of the Opposite Party at Bahrin that the address mentioned in complainant''s letter dated 5.7.91 was reported to be incorrect and as such the packet was still lying undelivered at Kuwait office of the Opposite Party. The Station Manager of the Opposite Party in India further wrote to the complainant that since the letter was in regular touch with the addressee at Kuwait, the complainant should communicate to the addressee to collect the letter from the local office of the Opposite Party at Kuwait. It may further be mentioned that the Opposite Party returned to the complainant the amount of Rs. 450/- which it had received from the complainant for rendering service as courier for taking the envelope and the documents contained in it to Kuwait for delivery to the addressee.

The Opposite Party filed its version on 27.8.93. Firstly, the Opposite Party relied upon the letter dated 31.7.91 which the Station Manager had written to the complainant that the address mentioned on the envelope was reported to be incorrect by Kuwait office of the Opposite Party. Secondly, the Opposite Party relied upon the terms and conditions stated to be printed on the back of the forwarder air bill. It is stated that according to the condition limiting the liability printed on the back of the forwarder air bill, the liability is limited to 100 US $ or the amount of loss or damage to a document of parcel actually sustained whichever is lesser. It is also said that the Opposite Party has not assumed liability for any loss, damage, misdelivery or non-delivery of the envelope.

IT is clear that the complainant had on 30.5.91 delivered to the Opposite Party an envelope for being delivered at Kuwait on payment of consideration of Rs. 450/-. Thus the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party as courier. IT is also clear that the complainant sent several letters dated 21.6.91, 5.7.91, 22.7.91 to the Opposite Party enquiring regarding delivery of the envelope. The Opposite Party did not send any reply to the complainant for two months. IT was on 31.7.91 that the Station Manager of the Opposite Party at Delhi informed the complainant that Kuwait office of the Opposite Party had reported that the address mentioned in the letter was incorrect and, therefore, the packet was still lying undelivered at Kuwait office of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has not produced the alleged letter sent by Kuwait office to the office at New Delhi in order to show to the State Commission the reasons mentioned by Kuwait office regarding non-delivery of the letter. The best evidence in possession of New Delhi office of the Opposite Party was the intimation which was received from its Kuwait office. That communication was withheld by the Opposite Party. Withholding of such a material document by a party in possession raises an adverse presumption against the Opposite Party that if the document would have been produced its contents would have gone against the Opposite Party or that it was wrong to state that address on the envelope was incorrect. The complainant had been working at Kuwait before return to India. He returned to India because of the break out of the hostilities in Kuwait in August 1990. After the hostilities had been over, the complainant wanted to return to Kuwait to continue his contractual service there. The complainant had, therefore, sent the letter in question through the Opposite Party courier in order to arrange for visa for his return to Kuwait. In these circumstances, therefore, it cannot be expected that the complainant would have been given an incorrect address on the envelope. On the other hand the addressee was fully known to the complainant and he must have given correct address. In any event the Opposite Party has failed to establish that its Kuwait office has informed that the address was incorrect.

IT is also clear that the letter dated 31.7.91 sent by the Station Manager states that the Kuwait office informed New Delhi office of the Opposite Party as late as on 31.7.91. Two months delay in intimating the fact of incorrect address and that the envelope was lying undelivered in the office of the Opposite Party at Kuwait itself goes to show that the manner of performance of service by the Opposite Party was deficient. As to the contention that the liability of the Opposite Party was limited to 100 US $, it may be stated firstly that the terms and conditions are not at all visible to human eyes. Moreover, there is nothing to show that these terms were accepted by the complainant. The complainant has proved by documentary evidence that he was employed in Kuwait from 1.4.88 till 19.10.88 and he was getting total salary of 220 Kuwait Dinar. Naturally the complainant had sent the letter to his known to Kuwait in order to return to Kuwait after the hostilities has ceased so that he may obtain contractual employment there as before. The complainant has claimed that he would have got salary of 270 Kuwaity Dinar which are equivalent to Rs. 27,000/-.On account of non-delivery of the letter by the Opposite Party, he had to remain in India unemployed for five months. He, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-. on that ground. He has also claimed further compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.It is not necessary that the complainant would have immediately got the job on reaching Kuwait. All that can be said is that the complainant was delayed in return to Kuwait. There was delay of two months on the part of the Opposite Party in informing the complainant regarding non-delivery of the letter. Naturally the complainant had to wait more in order to get the visa from Kuwait. Looking to all these facts, we are of the view that the Opposite Party should pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for their gross deficiency in service and negligence due to which the complainant suffered loss.

WE, therefore, partly allow this complaint and direct the Opposite Party to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- within two months. In case the Opposite Party fails to pay the compensation amount within two months it would be liable to pay interest on the said amount at 12% p.a. till the date of payment. The complainant will get Rs. 1,000/- as costs of this complaint. Complaint allowed with costs.