State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
World Pak Air Courier Service (I) Pvt. ... vs Sunil Chawla on 21 February, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 21-02-2008 Appeal No. A-130/2003 (Arising out of Order dated 23-11-2002 passed by the District Forum (South-II), Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 394/1998) 1. M/s. World Pak Air Courier Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. Having its Head Office at 81, 2nd Main Road, Yadav Giri, Mysore. 2. M/s. World Pak Air Courier Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Zonal Manager, 6-Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065. 3. M/s. World Pak Air Courier Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, C-23, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110026. . . . Appellants Versus Mr. Sunil Chawla, Proprietor, M/s. A.L.E. Lab Systems, 33/44 Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110026. . . . Respondent CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. Respondent availed the courier services of the appellant by sending four packets from 17-7-1997 to 03-10-1997. The packets contained pharmaceutical products and were to be delivered within one or two days. Appellant failed to deliver the packets and also failed to settle the claim of the respondent. Consequently the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.
2. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum, has vide impugned Order dated 23-11-2002 directed the appellant to pay Rs.49,531/- being the price of the medicines contained in the packets and Rs. 5,000/- as damages for the harassment, within one month, failing which interest @12% was payable.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. The version of the appellant before the District Forum was found to be contradictory against facts. On the one hand, the appellant took the plea that the packets contained medicines and since no medicines can be carried through courier and the goods were not insured, which was also the requirement, it was not liable to pay any compensation. At the same time, the appellant took the plea that the goods had been delivered and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service.
4. The aforesaid version of the appellant did not find favour with the District Forum as the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to show the delivery of the packets. Rather, this claim of the appellant was found to be total lie in view of letter No. WP-HO. 1302 97-98 dated 31-10-1997 written by the appellant to the respondent admitting the loss of the packets and directing its Delhi office to settle the claim. Again, the plea that the contents of the packets were not disclosed was also found to be false as Certificate dated 16-07-1997 issued by the respondent clearly stated that the cartons contained medicines for which bills were also attached.
5. It is settled law that the parties are governed by terms of contract. If a consumer avails the service of a courier for sending any goods or articles there is no terms in the contract between the parties as to the payment of cost of the goods being sent in case of non-delivery, wrong delivery or damaged delivery. Nor there is any receipt issued by the service provider that they have accepted the articles, packets or parcels having contents of a particular value, nature or type. But it does not mean that the courier service is absolved from its liability to perform its part of contract, i.e. to deliver the packets or parcels or letters or any other goods to the consignee within the promised period and any shortcoming, imperfection, inadequacy in the manner of performance of such a contract amounts to deficiency in service and entitles the consumer to a reasonable amount as compensation. To compensate the consumer as to the actual value of the contents which has neither been declared by it nor has been accepted by the courier, in case of non-delivery, is not in consonance with the terms of the contract and would rather be irrational and hard upon the service provider. Rightly so, as the courier receives consideration in few thousands whereas the packets or parcels may contain goods or articles of value running into lacs.
6. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we deem that a compensation; for the mental agony, harassment and loss suffered by the respondent, amounting to Rs. 25,000/- besides Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Payment shall be made within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Copy of orders, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member HK