AUDIO CLINIC Vs. ITC EXPRESS COURIERS AND CARGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Audio Clinic situated at Booth No.54, Sector 22d, Chandigarh, entrusted six hearing-aids in an envelope/packet to M/s. ITC Express (Couriers and Cargo) located in Sector 22b, Chandigarh, for delivery to M/s. Mac Electronics, 9, Linker Road, Madras, on 29.7.1993 and paid Rs.40/- as charges against a receipt. The envelope did not reach the destination. Aggrieved against it, the consigner approached the District Forum and it ordered on 12.5.1997 that a sum of Rs.100/- shall be paid as compensation and also ordered that a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable as damages. Besides this a sum of Rs.1.100/- has been awarded as costs of the proceedings. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that it was not at all liable even to pay Rs.100/-. This contention is not acceptable because there is a receipt issued by M/s. ITC Express dated 29.7.1993 and it shows that Rs.40/- were charged for transportation of the packet. A perusal of this receipt shows that there is a specific condition prominently printed on the front, which is reproduced as under: "our liability in case of loss or damage shall not exceed Rs.100/-. " this also finds specific mention at Sr. No.5 in terms and conditions printed on the back of the receipt. There was also condition No.3 that the complainant could get the parcels insured, but no such step was taken by the complainant and it was not mentioned that the envelope contained 'hearing-aids'.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, Bharati Knit- ting Co. V/s. DHL Worldwide Express Courier, 1996 2 CPJ 25 has been referred to, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the National Commission was right in limiting the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties and in awarding the amount for deficiency in service to the extent of the liability undertaken by the respondent. Considering the present legal position as given above, we are of the view that in this case not to speak of enhancement, even the awarded sum of Rs.5,000/- cannot be sustained in toto inasmuch as the complainant shall be entitled to the refund of Rs.40/-, which were paid by him. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.140/- within one month. In case, the sum of Rs.140/- is not paid within one month, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till realisation. As regards costs, it is reduced to Rs.500/-. The appeal is partly accepted. With this modification, the appeal stands decided.