IMPORTANT POINT
Non-delivery of consignment by Courier Service Provider amounts to deficiency in service.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Manager DTDC express limited challenging the order dated 21st August 2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.A/ 638/2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had booked a consignment for delivery to Guwahati from Kolkata on 4th March 2014 which was to be delivered on 8th March 2014. However the consignment was not delivered to the consignee till the stipulated time. The complainant pursued with the opposite party however no response was there and therefore the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum being CC number 612/2014. The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing the written statement in which it was mainly alleged that the complainant had given incomplete postal address and therefore it was not possible for the opposite party to find out the address of the consignee. However the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay rupees 10,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment and rupees 1000/- towards the cost of litigation within one month from the date of this order failing which OPs will pay 9% per annum interest.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dated 30th June 2016 the complainant as well as the opposite party filed the appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 21st August 2017 dismissed the appeal of the opposite party and allowed the appeal filed by the complainant as under :-

“The Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Hence,

That A/638/2016 A/703/2016 be and the same are dismissed and allowed on contest, respectively. The impugned order is modified as under:

The OPs shall pay the entire cost of goods, i.e., Rs.60,676/- to the complainant together with compensation for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs.1,000/- within 45 days hence. In default, OPs shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% on Rs.60,676/- from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 11-11-2014 till full and final payment is made.”

4. Hence the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when the consignment was being booked it was suggested by the counterperson to take insurance for the consignment however, no insurance was taken and the consignment was booked under D series. It is mentioned on the receipt that for every consignment the liability of the petitioner will only be up to rupees 5,000. Therefore the petitioner cannot be burdened with more compensation than the liability arising out of the contract between the parties. Moreover, the petitioner is not concerned with the valuation of the consignment if no insurance premium is paid. If a person is sending valuable item, then precaution should be taken to send the same by obtaining the insurance cover as well. Otherwise for normal items, the liability is up to rupees 5,000/- only as mentioned in the receipt which forms the contract between the two parties.

6. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as alleged, the consignment consisted of a makeup kit which was sold by the complainant to the consignee and the transaction was of commercial nature and the service of the petitioner was availed for commercial purpose. Consequently the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant stated that the complainant has not done any commercial business with the petitioner and it was a sale to the consignee by the complainant who is running this business for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. Since, State Commission has already dealt with this issue and has reached to the conclusion that this was not a commerc