AIRPAK INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD Vs. K P NANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 9th March, 1995 passed by the State Commission, Kerala at Thiruvanthapuram in appeal against the Order dated 27th July, 1992 of Dis¬trict Forum, Kozhikode allowing the complaint and granting a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-besides costs of Rs. 250/- which compensation was reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- by the State Commission.

(2.) THE wife of the complainant expired on 14th December, 1990. The father-in-law and sister-in-law requested the complainant to send the ashes of the deceased for immersion in the Ganga after performance of the last rites. The complainant after collecting the ashes, booked the consignment of the ashes with the Regional Manager, Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd for carriage from Calicut to Bangalore and from Bangalore to Chandigarh. The consignment never reached the consignee. According to the com¬plainant the mortal remains of his wife are price¬less but as the loss of the ashes caused mental agony and pain to the complainant, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the loss, in the complaint filed before the District Forum. The opposite parties did not appear before the Dis¬trict Forum despite notice having been served. The District Forum on the basis of the documents produced on the record as well as the affidavit of the complainant found that there was deficiency in service in the handling of the consignment and granted to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the loss suffered by the com¬plainant due to the negligence of the opposite parties besides Costs of Rs. 250/-.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. K.B.S. Rajan, Advo¬cate for the Petitioner and have gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant as well as the written submissions made by the Revision Petitioner. A photocopy of the consign¬ment note is on the record. It records that M/s. Airpak International Pvt. Ltd. shall not be liable for special incidental or consequential damages arising from the carriage hereof and Airpak International Couriers and Cargo limit its liabi¬lity to a maximum of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) per consignment for any cause. Thus the terms and conditions on the front of the consignment note records this fact and the same was duly accepted by the consignor. The ques¬tion of law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Co. v. DHL World¬wide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25, wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by this Commis¬sion in its Order dated 17.1.96 in First Appeal No. 317 of 1993 and held that this Commission was right in limiting quantum of compensation to the extent of the liability undertaken in the contract entered into between the parties and in award¬ing compensation for deficient service only to die extent of the liability undertaken. It bears repetition that the consignment note limited the extent of liability undertaken by the couriers as Rs. 100/- only on the very front portion of the consignment note. This Commission had in an earlier case Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v S. Suresh decided on 11.3.93 [I (1994) CPJ 52] simi¬larly expressed that the State Commission was not justified to grant any compensation for the deficiency in service beyond Rs. 100/- as per the accepted terms of the consignment note given by the Courier. The State Commission as well as the District Forum have acted against the principle of law laid down by this Commission and up¬held by the Supreme Court that the award of the amount for deficiency in service on the part of a courier is limited to the extent of liability undertaken by the Courier. The impugned orders of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission suffer from serious irregularity and illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.