SKY PAK COURIER vs PRADEEP SHINKRE

THE appellant was the opposite party in Complaint No. 67/97 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa and being aggrieved by its direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- has preferred this appeal.

THE case of the complainant in brief is as follows: He had applied for the post of Junior Specialist in Anaesthesiology in the Ministry of Health, Government of Sultanate of Oman. He was called upon for interview at Bombay and was duly selected for the post. He had received the offer of appointment and the specimen agreement of contract from the Ministry of Health, Sultanate of Oman and he had to send a set of documents to the Ministry of Health. He stated that the opposite party collected Rs. 1,100/- as fees for delivery of documents. THE said consignment was misplaced and therefore the opposite party was directed by the District Forum to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and also cost of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party did not file its written version nor filed its affidavit and therefore, the District Forum has passed the order awarding the compensation as adverted to already.

The legality and correctness of this order, have been questioned by the appellant. When the mater was taken up for arguments, both the appellant, and its learned Advocate were absent. The learned Advocate for respondent was heard. One of the main contentions taken by the appellant in the course of appeal memorandum is for misplacement of consignment, by agreement of parties, the compensation awardable is restricted to US 100 dollars and therefore the District Forum was not right in awarding the amount as adverted to already. No such agreement in between the parties for restricting the payment of amount to US 100 dollars has been produced and therefore there is no scope for this Commission to accept that case of appellant. The complainant has taken up plea because of agreement did not reach the proposed employer in time as called upon by it, he lost his job and therefore he should be compensated. When we questioned the complainant and his learned Advocate, they pleaded that no material has been placed before the District Forum in that regard. Therefore, it is clear that there is no scope to claims as compensation on account of fact the complainant did not get job on account of this consignment being misplaced by the opposite party and not delivered to the addressee in time.

THAT the complainant delivered a certain consignment to the opposite party and it was misplaced is not disputed. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,100/- as carriage charges of consignment is not in dispute. The complainant has stated that he spent a sum of Rs. 5,687/- for attestation and stamping of documents and cost of travel to Bombay and stay at Bombay and the total loss suffered by him is Rs. 8,031.50 ps. There could be no doubt that the complainant is entitled to recover this amount. Again, when no basis has been laid for awarding any particular amount by way of compensation in relation to non delivery of consignment to addressee, it appears to us in the interest of justice, the amount of Rs. 8031.50ps. could be rounded to Rs. 10,000/-which includes the notional compensation to be awarded to the complainant. Therefore, we are satisfied the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite party. In the result, the award of compensation made by the District Forum of Rs. 52,200/- is modified to Rs. 10,000/- and direction to pay cost is sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and in place of Rs. 52,200/-, we direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- with cost. The amount shall be paid within 15 days from this date failing which it shall carry interest at 18% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment. The appeal is allowed in part only to the extent as indicated above. Allowed partly allowed with costs.