State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Skypak Couriers Ltd., vs M/S.Wartsila Diesel India Ltd., on 21 September, 2010
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HONBLE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Appeal
No.1267/1999 Date of filing:
13/07/1999
In Complaint
No.231/1997 Date of order: 21/09/2010
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District.
M/s.Skypak Couriers
Ltd.,
(now known as M/s.Skypak
Services Specialists Ltd.,)
Skypak House, Marol
Naka,
Off. M.V. Road, Press
Metal Compound,
Andheri(E), Mumbai
400 072.
..Appellant/
(Org. Opp.Party)
V/s.
1.
2.
M/s.Wartsila Diesel
India Ltd.,
New India Centre, 11th
Floor,
17 Cooperage Road,
Mumbai 400 039.
The Honble President
and Memebrs,
Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,
Mumbai Suburban
District.
..Respondents
Quorum:
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member.
Present:
Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the Respondent.
-: O R D E R :-
Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member:(1)
This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, on 17.2.1999 in Consumer Complaint No.231/1997.(2)
Facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under:
The Complainant had booked a consignment with the Appellant Company Sky-Pack Couriers. The Appellant Company had forwarded the same to Chennai through the Branch Office at Calcutta. At the time of booking, the original Complainant/Respondent submitted declaration which was attached with the consignment on 23.04.1996. The consignment was to be reached to Chennai within 48 hours. The consignment was not reached to its destination. As the consignment was not reached to its destination the Complainant made formal claim of Rs.1,04,505.60 on 15.10.1996. The Appellant had not accepted the claim of the original Complainant/Respondent and informed the original Complainant/Respondent vide letter dated 19.11.1996 stating that the consignment had been lost in transit and the Appellant is liable for liability of Rs.1,000/-only and hence, original Complainant/Respondent had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and demanding reimbursement of Rs.1,04,505.60 and also demanding the damages of Rs.50,000/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost.(3)
The Ld. District Forum after hearing both the parties partially allowed the complaint directing the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,505.60 within two months from the receipt of the copy of the judgement/order dated 17th February, 1999.
Aggrieved by the said order original Opposite Party has preferred present appeal.
(4)We heard both the Advocates. The Counsel for the Appellant argued that the original Complainant/Respondent had booked consignment to be sent to Chennai and accordingly issued a receipt to the original Complainant/Respondent. As per the terms and conditions of the receipt, in case of loss of consignment, the Appellant is liable to a liability of Rs.1,000/- only and which he is willing to offer to the original Complainant/Respondent. At page No.28 there is a copy of the receipt of the consignment issued by the Appellant. On perusal of the same, it shows that there are no terms and conditions on the receipt issued by the Appellant. In the absence of any terms and conditions, the contention of the Ld. Counsel cannot be accepted. It is the fact that the consignment booked by original Complainant/Respondent has not reached to its destination and it is lost in transit. We have gone through the judgement of the Supreme court in the case of Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v/s. Best Roadways Ltd.[1986-2004 Consumer 7377 (NS)7177], wherein the Apex Court observed that:
the liability of the carrier to whom the goods are entrusted for carrage is that of an insurer and is absolute in terms, in the sense that the carrier has to deliver the goods safely, undamaged and without loss at the destination, indicated by the consignor. So long as the goods are in the custody of the carrier, it is the duty of the carrier to take due care as he would have taken of his own goods and would be liable, if any loss or damage was caused to the goods on account of his own negligence or criminal act or that of agent and servants.
In another case between DHL Worldwide Express (A Division of AFL Ltd.) and another V/s. AGG Exports and another, [2009 CTJ 106 (CP)(SCDRC)], the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab has held that:
printed terms on the receipts whether binding? Deficiency in serviceConsumer Protection Act 1986Section 2(1)(g)Section 2(1)(o)- whether the liability of Appellants restricted to US$100 as printed on the back of receipt? Held No - Appellants not to be absolved from their liability after the deficiency ins service found proved Rather their liability corresponded to the losses suffered by the Consumer and for the harassment and inconvenience suffered.(5)
In view of the aforesaid authorities, there is a clear-cut deficiency in service of the Appellant and Forum below has rightly passed the order and we do not find any merit in the appeal. In view of the aforesaid facts, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The order of the District Forum dated 17.02.1999 is hereby confirmed.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(Dhanraj Khamatkar) ( S.R. Khanzode ) Member Presiding Judicial Member