T.C.A. SRINIVASAN vs PROFESSIONAL COURIERS

THERE is no dispute whatever that the consignment booked on 5.8.2003 by the complainant to Delhi was never delivered at all by the opposite parties. The opposite parties admit that it was wrongly delivered and when they came to know about it, they made investigation and found that it was delivered to a different person at the given address and their attempt to get back the consignment did not succeed. Thus, on their own showing it is clear that there is deficiency in service. Rightly the opposite parties have not chosen to prefer an appeal against the order.

NOW coming to the question of compensation, there is no proof and in fact, the opposite parties have not produced even the consignor note to show that the liability of the opposite parties is restricted to a sum of Rs. 100. Therefore, it follows that there is no contract or agreement between the parties restricting the liability to Rs. 100. Now coming to the compensation, it is stated that the valuable documents were sent in that cover and since they were not delivered, the consignee was put to a lot of hardship. It appears that the envelope contained a letter and an application form requiring details for registration of a flat at Bangalore along with instructions for payment of fees which were to be executed by T.C.A. Kalyani to whom it was addressed to. The complainant because it was not delivered had to make several phone calls to ascertain the position and in that context, he had incurred expenditure which cannot be ignored. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 7,500 towards the same. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 7,500 on the ground that the fact that it was not delivered had caused considerable anguish and physical inconvenience, difficulties and sufferings. The medical bills produced all stand in the name of T.C.A. Srinivasan, who is the appellant/complainant herein. The complainant would say that on account of the fact that the said envelope was not delivered he suffered physically, developed cardiac problem and had to seek the advice of leading doctors in that field and in that context, he incurred certain expenditure. We find that the complainant has produced a document to show that he underwent some surgery for which he paid a sum of Rs. 1,67,213 on 26.2.2004. Whereas we find that the envelope sent in the month of August 2003. Therefore, it is very difficult to connect these bills to the complaint as cause and effect. The Lower Forum has granted a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards compensation for the mental agony, etc. and a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards phone calls. Definitely when the documents are sent and are not received by the other end, it would cause mental agony and physical sufferings as well. There is deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Therefore, in the circumstances we are of the view that the order passed by the Lower Forum granting only a sum of Rs. 3,500 is meagre. We find from the records that on account of the same, the complainant had to suffer physically and mentally. In the circumstances, we hold that the complainant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation for deficiency in service besides Rs. 2,000 already fixed by the Lower Forum towards telephone charges. The complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 500 as cost.

In fine, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Lower Forum is modified. There will be a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000 with a cost of Rs. 500. Appeal allowed.