SKYPAK COURIERS PVT.LTD. Vs. ANUPAMA BAGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the order impugned in this appeal the State Commission, Rajasthan has allowed in part the complaint put forward by the respondent herein for recovery as compensation for non -delivery of a package containing a video cassette, which had been entrusted with the appellants company which is engaged in the business of courier service for carriage from Jaipur to Bombay. The finding of the State Commission that the cassette entrusted for carriage to the appellant was not delivered to the address in Bombay is based on the evidence add used before the State Commission. We do not find any ground for interference by us with the said finding.

(2.) IT has further been found by the State Commission that the said cassette which was to be delivered on the very next day has not been so far delivered at all apparently because it was lost or miscarried during transit. The result has been that the respondent who had applied for admission in the Sophia College in Bombay could not secure admission. She had undergone a course at Cornell University in U.S.A. and the video cassette which contained a record of her work in the said University was entrusted to the appellant for carriage from Jaipur to Bombay. Due to the non -delivery of the said cassette to the Sophia College at Bombay in time she was denied of her chance of getting admission. The complainant was thus put to serious hardship and loss by reason of the neglect and failure on the part of the courier to deliver the article entrusted to them for carriage. This clearly constitutes a ˜deficiency in the service of the appellant which had been hired by the respondent for consideration. The State Commission therefore rightly held that the complainant was entitled to recover compensation for the loss suffered by her. On the question of quantum of compensation, the State Commission has given valid reasons for fixing Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation payable to the respondent. We find no reason for interference with the said conclusion recorded by the State Commission. We accordingly dismiss this appeal. The appellant will pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - by way of costs incurred by the respondent for contesting this appeal. Appeal dismissed.