1996 1 CPC 263 ; 1995 3 CPJ 235 ; 1996 1 CPR 299
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Honble Mr. Justice Navin Chandra Sharma,
President & Mrs. Firoza Bano, Member
AGARWAL COURIER SERVICE—Appellant
versus
ASHOK KUMAR KHANDELWAL & ANR.—Respondents
Appeals Nos. 557 of 1992 and 31 of 1993—Decided on 30.3.1995
Act Referred :CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.14, S.2
(A) The present matter revolves around the determination of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, specifically invoking Section 2 for the definition of 'deficiency' and Section 14 regarding the adjudication of complaints. The case examines whether the failure of a courier service to deliver an important application form for a competitive examination, despite a specific address being provided, constitutes a deficiency in service. The court analyzed whether the statutory liability for compensation arises when the service provider fails to demonstrate due diligence in delivery attempts, thereby depriving the consumer of a time-sensitive opportunity.
(B) The core legal principles discussed involve the standard of proof required to refute a claim of deficiency in service, the liability of a principal for the acts of its agents, and the principles governing the quantification of compensation, specifically the distinction between actual loss and speculative loss of future earnings.
Facts of the case:
A consumer sent an envelope containing an application form for a public service commission examination via a courier service. The courier failed to deliver the envelope to the recipient by the specified deadline, causing the recipient to miss the application date. The courier claimed the address was incomplete and returned the envelope to the sender after the deadline. The District Forum found a deficiency in service and awarded a small compensation, leading to cross-appeals by both the service provider and the consumer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the address provided on the envelope was specific and complete. The courier's claims of an incorrect address were unsupported as the endorsements on the envelope were neither dated nor signed, nor did they specify how the address was incomplete. The court concluded that the agent of the courier service did not make serious efforts to deliver the envelope. However, the court rejected the claim for loss of salary, noting that appearing for an exam does not guarantee success or appointment.
Issues:
1. Whether the failure to deliver the envelope due to an alleged incorrect address constituted a deficiency in service.
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the District Forum was reasonable or if it should be increased to include projected salary losses.
Ratio Decidendi:
A service provider cannot escape liability for deficiency in service by making vague, unsigned, and undated claims of 'incorrect address' when the address provided is prima facie complete. Furthermore, compensation for consequential loss (such as loss of employment) cannot be granted on a speculative basis without proof that the outcome (success in the exam) was certain.
Result:
Both appeals were dismissed, and the order of the District Forum awarding Rs. 2000/- as compensation was upheld.
(A) The present matter revolves around the determination of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, specifically invoking Section 2 for the definition of 'deficiency' and Section 14 regarding the adjudication of complaints. The case examines whether the failure of a courier service to deliver an important application form for a competitive examination, despite a specific address being provided, constitutes a deficiency in service. The court analyzed whether the statutory liability for compensation arises when the service provider fails to demonstrate due diligence in delivery attempts, thereby depriving the consumer of a time-sensitive opportunity.
(B) The core legal principles discussed involve the standard of proof required to refute a claim of deficiency in service, the liability of a principal for the acts of its agents, and the principles governing the quantification of compensation, specifically the distinction between actual loss and speculative loss of future earnings.
Facts of the case:
A consumer sent an envelope containing an application form for a public service commission examination via a courier service. The courier failed to deliver the envelope to the recipient by the specified deadline, causing the recipient to miss the application date. The courier claimed the address was incomplete and returned the envelope to the sender after the deadline. The District Forum found a deficiency in service and awarded a small compensation, leading to cross-appeals by both the service provider and the consumer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the address provided on the envelope was specific and complete. The courier's claims of an incorrect address were unsupported as the endorsements on the envelope were neither dated nor signed, nor did they specify how the address was incomplete. The court concluded that the agent of the courier service did not make serious efforts to deliver the envelope. However, the court rejected the claim for loss of salary, noting that appearing for an exam does not guarantee success or appointment.
Issues:
1. Whether the failure to deliver the envelope due to an alleged incorrect address constituted a deficiency in service.
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the District Forum was reasonable or if it should be increased to include projected salary losses.
Ratio Decidendi:
A service provider cannot escape liability for deficiency in service by making vague, unsigned, and undated claims of 'incorrect address' when the address provided is prima facie complete. Furthermore, compensation for consequential loss (such as loss of employment) cannot be granted on a speculative basis without proof that the outcome (success in the exam) was certain.
Result:
Both appeals were dismissed, and the order of the District Forum awarding Rs. 2000/- as compensation was upheld.
ORDER
Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President — This order will decide two Cross Appeals Nos. 557/ 92 and 31/93 by a common order. They arise from an order of the District Forum, Ajmer dated 31.7.92 passed in Complaint Case No. 387/91 whereby the District Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as against Opposite Party No. 1-M/s. Agarwal Courier Service, Ajmer. Appeal No. 557/92 has been filed by Opposite Party No. 1 while Appeal No. 31/93 has been filed by the complainant. It may be mentioned that appearance had been p ut on behalf of the appellant on 16.3.93 but none appeared thereafter on behalf of the appellant M/s. Agarwal Courier Service. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.
2. Complainant Ashok Kumar Khandelwal had sent an envelope to his sister Smt. Asha Khandelwal at Alwar through Opposite Party No. 1 — M/s. Agarwal Courier Service on 1.12.91. According to the complainants, the envelope contained in it an application form of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer for appearing in Rajasthan Administrative Services and certain marks sheets. According to the complainants the Courier had assured that the envelope would be delivered to Smt. Asha Khandelwal at Alwar on 31.12.91 and that in case the same was not delivered, the complainant No. 1 will receive it back by 5.12.91. According to the complainants, the last date for making the application for appearing in Rajasthan Administrative Services fixed by the Public Service Commission was 7.12.91. The complainant No. 1 had paid Rs. 5/- to the Courier as charges for delivering the envelope at Alwar to his sister. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 1 malafidely did not deliver the envelope to complainant No. 2 upto 8.12.91 and thus the complainant No. 2 was deprived of the opportunity to submit the application form in the Public Service Commission and to appear in the RAS Examination. The complainants prayed that they may be awarded salary of two years admissible to a member of RAS @ Rs. 2200/- per month with D.A. and other benefits. They further claimed a compensation of Rs. 2000/- for mental distress and agony.
3. Both the Opposite Parties filed their version before the District Forum. According to M/s. Agarwal Courier Service, the complainant had not mentioned correct address of Smt. Asha Khandelwal. The envelope was sent to Alwar to Opposite Party No. 2 for delivery to. Smt. Asha Khandelwal but as the address was not complete and correct. Opposite Party No. 2 returned the envelope. The returned envelope was sent to complainant No. 1 on 6.12.91 but it was not accepted. Again it was sent to complainant No. 1 and was delivered to him on 9.12.91. The Opposite Party No. 2 also filed a similar reply. It also stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainants and Opposite Party No. 2. The District Forum, Ajmer held that the address given on the envelope was specific and complete. The endorsement on the envelope did not show as to in what manner the address was not complete and there we also no initials below the endorsement made on the envelope. The endorsement also did not show as to on what date attempts were made to make delivery of the envelope. The District Forum held that there was deficiency in service and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the complainants as against Opposite Party No. 1. Aggrieved by this order both the sides have filed the above mentioned appeals. So far as M/s. Agarwal Courier Service is concerned, it was stated in the memorandum of appeal that the address was not correct and complete and, therefore, the same was returned. The returned envelope was attempted to be delivered to the complainant on 6.12.91, but the same was not accepted and it was again attempt and delivered on 9.12.91. It is to be said that no compensation should have been awarded as against Opposite Party No. 1. So far as the complainants are concerned they have prayed for increased compensation to the extent of Rs. 98,010/-.
4. As regards Appeal No. 31 /93, it may be stated that this appeal was reported to be barred by limitation by 29 days. The complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was some typing error in the order of the District Forum, Ajmer dated 31.7.92 in its page No. 3. The complainant, there-fore, made an application for correction of the order which was corrected on 1.9.92 and, therefore, the appeal was filed on 28.9.92. The delay is condoned. On merits of the case, it is clear that the complainant had sent the envelope addressed to Asha Khandelwal and had delivered the same on 1.12.91 to M/s. Agarwal Courier Service. There is nothing to show that any delay was caused by M/s. Agarwal Courier Service to send the envelope to Alwar. There is an endorsement on the envelope to the effect that full and complete address to be written and that there was wrong address. There is further endorsement that despite several efforts, the delivery man could not find the address. It may be mentioned that the endorsement are neither dated nor signed by any one. Prima facie the address is specific and complete. There is no endorsement to the effect that at the given address, no person named Smt. Asha Khandelwal was available. It, therefore, appears that Opposite Party No. 2, who was the agent of Opposite Party No. 1 did not make serious efforts to deliver the envelope to Smt. Asha Khandelwal. It returned the envelope on 5.12.91 to M/s. Agarwal Courier Service. The Opposite Party No. 1 attempted to return the envelope on 6.12.91 to complainant No. 1 but it was not accepted on that day and was only accepted on 9.12.91. It thus appears that there was deficiency in service on the part of the agent of Opposite Party No. 1.
5. As to the quantum of compensation, we are of the view that the compensation awarded is quite reasonable and no increase whatsoever is called for. There is no guarantee that in case the complainant No. 2 would have appeared in RAS examination, she would have been successful and would have been appointed in service. Consequently, she cannot get compensation to the extent of two years salary admissible to a member of RAS.
Consequently both these appeals have no merits in them and the same are dismissed
Both appeals dismissed.
––