R.V.N.S.MURTHY vs DESK TO DESK COURIER

THE 1st appellant is present in person and represented his case. THE respondents though served with notice, are not present and there is no representation on their behalf.

THE appellants herein are the complainants in O.P. No. 1437/1996 before the Hyderabad District Forum. THE case of the complainants is that the 2nd complainant having obtained LIC premium receipt on behalf of the 1st complainant despatched the same on 19.11.1996 through the 2nd opposite party courier service from Bhadrachalam to Hyderabad to the 1st complainant, that the said consignment was not delivered to the 1st complainant and that they are entitled to damages of Rs. 25,000/- and expenses of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly they approached the District Forum for necessary reliefs by filing a complaint O.P. No. 1437 of l996. The opposite parties filed their version stating that the sender of the consignment has not declared the contents of the consignment, that the compensation payable for the loss of the consignment is restricted to Rs. 100/- as per the terms and conditions of the consignment and that they are not liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainants.

The complainants filed a reply affidavit and got Exs. A-1 to A-2 marked in support of their claim. The opposite parties have not filed any document in defence. No oral evidence was adduced by either party.

AS the consignment in question was not delivered by the opposite parties, the District Forum held that the opposite parties are liable to pay damages for the loss of the consignment. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)=(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 704, the District Forum held that the complainants are entitled to only Rs. 100/- as mentioned in the consignment note towards the damages, since according to the terms of the contract the compensation payable for the loss of the consignment is restricted to Rs. 100/-. Accordingly the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- to the complainants with interest @ 18% per annum from 20.11.1996 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs. 300/- towards costs. Not satisfied with the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal. The appellants contend that the Supreme Court decision is not applicable to the present case since the complainants have not agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned in the consignment note and that therefore, the District Forum is not right in limiting the amount to Rs. 100/- only.

WE have examined the xerox copy of the consignment note filed on behalf of the complainants and marked as Ex. A-1. It shows that it was not signed by the 2nd complainant, who is the sender of the consignment at Bhadrachalam. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainants are not bound by the terms and conditions of the consignment and that the amount of compensation payable for the loss of the consignment need not be restricted to Rs. 100/-. As there is no dispute by the respondents that the consignment contained LIC receipts and as it is quite likely that the complainants might have been subjected to some mental agony, we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded towards compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified and the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 2,000/- and the opposite parties are directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 2,000/- together with interest at 12% (twelve) per annum from 20.11.1996 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 300/- awarded by the District Forum. One month time is granted for compliance. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed with costs.