AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THE complainant has preferred this appeal. THE complaint relates to a consignment which was sent through the opposite parties, who are couriers. It is not in dispute that of the three bundles entrusted with the opposite parties, one bundle consisting of 56 sarees was reported stolen. We also find that an FIR was lodged by the opposite parties in that regard. THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant would urge that the complainant is entitled to the value of the consignment. But the Supreme Court has held in II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC) that when there is a specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by the contract and that the liability of the courier in such cases will be limited to Rs. 1,000/-. THErefore, following the ruling of the Supreme Court as well as that of the National Commission reported in II (1996) CPJ 152 (NC) and I (1994) CPJ 52 (NC), we have to hold that the complainant is entitled to only a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and not entitled to the value of the consignment. THErefore, in such circumstances, the order passed by the lower Forum cannot be faulted with and hence, there is no merit in this appeal.
IN the result, this appeal is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.