2015(1) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 48
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
R.C. CHAVAN AND DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR, JJ.
Mr. K. V. G. Aithal Vs. The Manager, Vichare Courier Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
First Appeal No.582 of 2007
14th July, 2014
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. U.B. WAVIKAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. A.S. KAZI
Consumer Protection Act (1986), S.2 - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Complainant had booked three letters with opponent courier company - Allegedly the envelope containing an application for appointment as auditor did not reach the addressee bank, resulting in losing prospective job and monthly earning - Forum observed that in contract, liability is limited to Rs.100/- - Complainant stating that in case of willful default, made limit of Rs.100/- would not apply - However, no allegation of any willful default made in the complaint - Therefore, compensation quantified at Rs.100/- along with costs of Rs.1000/- held, proper. (Paras 5, 6)
Cases Cited:
M/s. Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Consumer Education and Research Society & Ors., in 1986-96 National Commission & SC on Consumer Cases 1788 (NS) [Para 5]
Bharati Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC) [Para 5]
JUDGMENT
Mr. R. C. CHAVAN, Hon'ble President :- This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai directing opponent to pay compensation quantified at Rs.100/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Complainant is aggrieved by the order passed.
2. There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant had booked three letters with the opponent courier service company. One letter was not received by the addressee as per the complainant's allegation. Complainant alleged that the envelope containing an application for appointment as auditor did not reach the bank, which resulted in losing prospective job and monthly earning of Rs.6,500/-. Therefore, he wanted compensation of Rs.2,34,000/- plus Rs.15,000/- as costs.
3. Respondent /Courier Service Company filed written version and stated that the contents of the items received for delivery are not checked, unless they are declared by the consignor. Complainant had not declared contents of the article. Respondent also contended that the article was in fact delivered to the Dena Bank and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service.
4. After hearing the parties, forum came to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, appellant/complainant is before us.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the learned counsel for the respondent courier service company submitted that there is an affidavit of one Mr.Satish S.Damle at page 56 stating that the article in question was delivered to the bank and that there was no deficiency in service, since courier company has not preferred any appeal, we are not going into that question. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted by relying on judgment of National Commission in M/s.Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Consumer Education and Research Society and others in 1986-96 National Commission & SC on Consumer Cases 1788 (NS),holding that higher compensation can be granted than that mentioned in the terms and conditions whereby packet was accepted for delivery. We find that it would not be permissible to take a similar view in this matter because the District Forum has rightly relied on judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Bharati Knitting Company v/s. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. II(1996) CPJ 25 (SC), where Supreme Court had observed that when there is a specific term in the contract, parties are bound by the terms in the contract. In the contract, the liability is limited to only Rs.100/-. Learned counsel submitted that there are judgments to the effect that this limit of Rs.100/- would not apply, if there is willful default. We see no allegation of any willful default in the complaint.
6. In view of this, we find no error in the order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal.