INDRAPURI EXPRESS COURIER Vs. MODERN AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Nagpur dated 20.7.94 passed in Complaint No.218/93. A complaint was made before the District Forum by M/s. Modern Agencies alleging that the consignment booked at Bombay on 7.8.92 and30.6.92 with the Opposite Party was lost in transit and was not received by him. The complainant alleged that, he paid Rs.25/- and Rs.50/- towards hire charges to the opposite party No.1 who is the courier. The goods were lost by Opposite Party in transit due to his negligence. The complainant, therefore, made a complaint claiming the value of his goods and compensation for the loss of his consignment due to negligence in the service of Opposite Party. The complainant tendered his evidence in the form of affidavit and the relevant documents in support of his case before the District Forum. Opposite Party filed its written version but did not file any evidence in the form of affidavit in support its contentions. The District Forum, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Party. The District Forum has held that the consignment was lost during the transit by the Opposite Party and, therefore, they were negligent in their promised service. By the impugned order District Forum directed the Opposite Party to refund to complainant Rs.6,946/- towards lost of his consignment together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 7.8.92 till realisation.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Kalantri, Advocate for the appellants whereas respondent was absent. Mr. Kalantri relied on the decision of the National Commission, New Delhi in the case of M/s. Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. S. Suresh, 1994 1 CPJ 52. It is held by the National Commission that loss of consignment by courier is a deficiency in the service but before courier is held liable for loss, the consignee should disclose the value of consignment in the consignment note and ought to have taken steps to get consignment insured. Under this circumstance, the National Commission reduced the amount or compensation from Rs.1 lac to Rs.100/- payable to complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we find that the complainant never disclosed the value of the consignment in the consignment note. It was only stated by the complainant that the consignment contained medical goods worth Rs.6,946/-. The consignment was also not insured. However, according to appellants the complainant was entitled to get Rs.500/- by way of compensation. It was also argued that no proper opportunity was afforded by the District Forum to submit his case. Hence, we find that the impugned order requires to be modified so far as the payment of compensation is concerned. We find that complainant is entitled to get Rs.500/- towards compensation as admitted by the appellants, and hence we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs.6,946/- to Rs.500/- besides the costs of Rs.250/-be awarded by the appellants. With this observations, we dispose of the appeal.