Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mr. Y. Krishan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Members
M/S. S.J.M. TRADERS PVT. LTD.—Complainant
versus
M/S. DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS—Opp. Party
O.P. No. 224 of 1992—Decided on 17.5.1994
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. N.N. Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party :Mr. G.R. Chabria, Advocate.
The liability of the courier for lost parcels and the validity of claims for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Export of Leather Garments - Liability of Courier for Lost Parcel
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an exporter of leather garments, sent a parcel containing samples of leather jackets to Germany through a courier. The parcel was lost while in the custody of the courier, leading to financial losses for the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's claims for loss of profit and further business were not supported by evidence, and the value of the lost parcel was minimal. The court deemed the complainant's claims as reckless and an abuse of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the courier for the lost parcel and the validity of the complainant's claims for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the courier was liable for the loss of the parcel and directed the courier to pay compensation for the value of the leather jackets and charges paid at the time of booking, as well as additional compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant.
Final Decision: The complaint was partly allowed, and the court directed the courier to pay compensation to the complainant for the loss of the parcel and the inconvenience caused.
Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—The Complainant M/s. S.J.M. Traders is an exporter of leather garments to European Countries. He has been sending the samples of the goods to buyers through the Opposite Party M/s. D.H.L. Worldwide Express in the belief and confidence that the samples would reach the buyers in time. For this purpose, the Complainant-Company was having an account with the Opposite Party-Company for the payments to be made for the despatches through the Opposite Party.
2. In the case in complaint, a parcel containing sample of leather jackets to be air lifted to Germany was delivered by the Complainant through the Opposite Party Courier on 11th June, 1992 for delivery to the consignee in Germany. According to the Complainant, at the time of booking, he was assured that the parcel would reach the addressee within three days. However, the parcel never reached its destination, in fact, was lost while in the custody of the Opposite party Courier. The consignor became aware of the non-delivery of the package on the 19th of June 1992 on receipt of a telex communication from the addressee and subsequently he was told by the Opposite Party courier that the package was not traceable.
The Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,01,800/- as under :
(1) Loss of profit on current order Rs. 10,00,000/-
(2) Loss of further business which was to be confirmed immediately Rs. 70,00,000/-
(3) Damage for mental tension, agony, harassment and loss of goodwill etc. in the export field with respect to leather garments Rs. 20,00,000/-
(4) Charges already paid to the courier by the consignor at the time of booking of the parcel. Rs. 1,800/-
Total… Rs. 1,00,01,800/-
3. During the hearing, Counsel for the Complainant could not explain as to why they could not or did not send another sample of the leather jackets to their client in Germany when it did not reach the addressee Within three days from the date of the booking. This was particularly relevent, because according to the Complainant, initial order of 3,000 pieces was to be confirmed by the German purchaser after approving samples. Since the samples were delivered for despatch on the 11th June, 1992, the complainant must have been anxious to know the reaction of the consignee in Germany so that he could take steps to obtain confirmation of the supply order for 3,000 pieces and start executing the same. More importantly, the Counsel for the Complainant could not produce the firm order from the buyer for 3,000 pieces of leather jackets subject to samples being approved. All that he could refer to was that there was a telex message cancelling the initial order of 3,000 pieces due to non-receipt of samples. But there could be cancellation if there was a firm order and there could be no firm order prior to the samples having been approved; at best, there could have been a letter of indent. But no firm order or letter of indent was produced. No material was also placed before this Commission that the complainant was likely to get confirmed export orders for supply of leather jackets worth Rs. 60 to 70 lakhs.
4. In the above context, we are unable to appreciate the claim of Rs. 10 lakhs for loss of profit on “current order” when no order existed, of Rs. 70 lakhs “for loss of further business……to be confirmed” for which also no evidence was produced.
5. It would be evident from the above that the complainant had made claim for damages recklessly perhaps because no Court fee is payable for complaints before the Consumer Forums. This is an abuse of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
6. The value of the three jackets declared in the Invoice dated the 11th June, 1992 was only Rs. 1,800/-. It was stated in the Invoice “Free trade samples/not for sale/no commercial value/ value declared for customs purpose only”.
7. The complainant also claims to have paid Rs. 1,800/- as charges to the opposite party courier at the time of booking the parcel.
8. We, therefore, direct that the oppo
