Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President;
Mrs. Susheela Cheluvaraju & Mr. Kumar Gowda, Members
JIJA S. HARI SINGH, IPS.—Complainant
versus
BIJOY ANAND RAGHAVAN—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 306 of 1992—Decided on 30.1.1996
Courier services are liable for deficiency in service if they fail to deliver documents on time, causing mental agony and suffering and loss of opportunity to the consumer.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - SECTION 12 - SECTION 17 - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPENSATION - COURIER SERVICES - DELAY IN DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS - MENTAL AGONY AND SUFFERING - LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a woman IPS officer, sent papers for an international conference in Brazil through the opposite party-couriers on 13.7.1992, with the assurance that they would reach the destination by 17.7.1992. However, the papers did not reach the destination on time, causing the complainant to miss the conference and lose an opportunity for career advancement. The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking compensation for the deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party-couriers committed deficiency in service by failing to deliver the papers on time, causing the complainant mental agony and suffering and loss of opportunity to attend the international conference. The court also found that the complainant had incurred expenses for fax messages, telephone calls, secretarial services, and courier and postal charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the opposite party-couriers committed deficiency in service by failing to deliver the papers on time? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the deficiency in service?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party-couriers were liable for deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as they failed to provide the promised service of delivering the papers on time. The court also held that the complainant was entitled to compensation under Section 12 of the Act for the mental agony and suffering and loss of opportunity caused by the deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-couriers to pay the complainant a total compensation of Rs. 7,750/- along with costs of Rs. 2,500/- within 60 days. In case of failure to make the payment within the stipulated time, the opposite party was directed to pay interest at 18% p.a. from the date of expiry of the 60-day period till the date of payment.
Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— In this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party-couriers.
2. The complainant-a Woman IPS officer, who was invited to attend the Annual Conference of International Association for Mass Communication Research (IAMCR) at Gaurajaa Saopaolo in Brazil and to present a paper — a study of Marital Disharmony — the Role of Police and Media Response, sent the papers proposed to be presented by the opposite party — couriers on 13.7.92, so as to reach the destination, that is, Stockholm, Sweden. The opposite party promised that the said document would reach Stockholm within a period, of 4 days therefrom, that is, on or before 17.7.1992.
3. The said document did not reach the destination as promised by the opposite party.
4. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 600/-, as per Ex.C-6, to the opposite party for the said service.
5. The complainant received an International Fax message from Prof. Medelien Klegerg, as per Ex. C-11, dated 29.7.1992 stating that the papers were not received by them till then and requested to immediately contact the opposite party-couriers. The O.P. on contacting them, informed her that they had handed over the said letter sent by her to one Johnson at Stockholm on 22.7.1992.
6. The complainant on receipt of the said Telex Fax sent another copy of entire papers to Sweden on 31.7.92. She also sent another copy to Delhi to arrange it to send through the Indian Ambassador to Stockholm, Sweden.
7. Tine complainant further averred that on 3.8.92, Prof. Medelien Klegerg called upon her and told her that the papers reached her hands and also telex copy but unfortunately it was too late to do anything.
8. It is the further case of the complainant that due to non-receiving of the papers in time, the complainant lost an opportunity to attend to such an International Conference, that is, the Conference to be held in Brezil d uring the period between 16.8.1992 and 21.8.1992, thereby she lost an opportunity of furthering her promotional career. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation from the opposite party-couriers, as referred above.
9. The opposite party, though served, remained absent and so the opposite party was placed ex-parte.
10. During enquiry, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and the documents filed by the complainant came to be marked as Ex. C-1 to C-11. We heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.
11. Ex.C-1 is the abstract of the papers sent to Sweden. The communications, Exs. C-2, C-3, C-4 and Ex. C-5, do go to show that the complainant was in correspondence with the Department of Journalism, Media and Communication, Stockholm University, Sweden, regarding her papers and her participation in the conference to be held at Brezil in the month of August, 1992.
12. The complainant sent the papers to Sweden on 13.7.1992 through the opposite parry couriers. The opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 600/- from the complainant, as per Ex. C-2 to send the documents to Stockholm, Sweden.
13. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party on 13.7.1992, assured her that it would positively carry the same to Stockholm, Sweden by 17.7.1992. But there is no documentary material placed on record to show that the opposite party had so assured to the complainant. The complainant has given evidence, by way of affidavit to show that the opposite party had so assured her. There is no rebuttal on the part of the opposite party on this evidence of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant when she handed over the papers to the opposite party on 13.7.1992 to carry the same to Stockholm, Sweden, the opposite party assured the complainant that it would carry the same on or before 17.7.1992.
14. Ex. C-11 is the Fax message dated 27.7.1992 from Prof. M
