IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation has to be in proportion to loss or damage suffered by consumer on account of deficiency in service.

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission West Bengal dated 18.09.2011 in First Appeal No. 243 of 2013 whereby the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner complainant, an Advocate, filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging that on 12.10.2010 he entrusted one envelope containing certified copy of the order of the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court dated 26.08.2010 to opposite party no.1 to be delivered on the address of his client Bholanath Dey. The complainant paid courier charges of Rs.20/-. The courier, however, was not delivered. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation alleging that due to non delivery of courier, his client has suffered damages and his reputation has also suffered.

3. Op No.2 Tapan Das, who is incharge of OP No.1 courier company contested the complaint by filing writing statement denying the allegations of deficiency in service.

4. The District Forum concerned on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in failing to deliver the courier at the given address and allowed the complaint.

5. The District forum directed Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- besides cost of Rs.5000/-. It was further ordered that in the event of failure of the opposite parties to pay the awarded amount within 15 days, the amount shall carry 18% interest from the date of the order till realization of the amount.

6. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, respondent opposite parties preferred an appeal. The State Commission West Bengal after hearing the parties and on consideration of record allowed the appeal in part and modified the order of the District Forum. The modified direction reads as under:

“The Appeal is allowed in part. The OP No.2 of the petition of complaint is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- ( Two Thousand) and litigation cost of Rs.500/- ( Five Hundred) to the Complainant / Respondent within 45 days from this date failing which the interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue from the date of default till realisation. Other directions passed by the Learned District Forum are set aside. The impugned order stands modified to the extent stated above.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission after having found deficiency in service should not have interfered in the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum. It is contended that State Commission has arbitrarily reduced the compensation ignoring the nature of injury and damage caused to the petitioner as also his client.

8. We do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner. No doubt, the consumer forum in the event of deficiency in service on the part of the service provider can justifiably award compensation to the consumer. The compensation, however, has to be in proportion to the loss or damage suffered by the consumer on account of deficiency in service. In the instant case, the plea of the complainant is that as a result of deficiency on the part of the opposite party courier company, his client could not get certified copy of the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P.L.R.T. 42 of 2010. In order to find out as to what could be the damage suffered by the client of the complainant due to non receipt / delay in receipt of the copy of the said order, it is necessary to have a look on the said order, which is reproduced as under:

“Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

Nobody appears on behalf of the State respondents even at the second call.

Having regard to the order under challenge, we are of the view that the matter requires adjudication on exchange of affidavits.

This w