Consumer Protection Council Tamil Nadu vs Indu Couriers Pvt Ltd

THE Consumer Protection Council, Trichy, Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation, Trichy have appealed against the order dated February 25,1993 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu in O.P. No. 204/92 mainly with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission. The Appellants herein were the Complainants and the Respondents -Company was the Opposite Party before the State Commission.

THE facts are that a packet containing some official records was delivered by the Regional Manager of Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Ltd., Tirukoilur to the Opposite Party Courier Company on 28.8.1991 for delivery at the formers Head Office at Trichy. According to the Complainants, the packets contained certain original records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings for recovery of amounts to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ - from certain delinquent officials of the Regional Office of the Forest Corporation. This consignment was not delivered. The Complainants alleged deficiency of service on the part of the courier company and prayed before the State Commission for an award of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 / on the ground that there were original records and there was no possibility of rebuilding the same. It was the case of the Opposite Party that its employee by name Sundaram took the packet in dispute alongwith other packets from Tirukoilur to Trichy via Salem and that at the bus -stand at Salem in the early hours of 29.8.1991, all these packets were stolen, and that it was not negligence on its part. The Opposite Party denied before the State Commission that the packet contained important documents or that it was informed of the importance of those documents. The Opposite Party also mentioned that a complaint was lodged at the Police Station, Pallapatti and that the same was under investigation. The Opposite Party contended that there was thus no deficiency of service of its part. It also disputed the amount of compensation claimed and stated that as per the way bill, it was liable for the loss only to the extent of Rs. 100/ -.

THE State Commission held that the Opposite Party -Courier Company which was in the possession of the consignment in question was in the position of a bailee and that the responsibility of a bailee for the articles entrusted to his care is governed by Sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contracts Act. The Commission further observed that whereas the burden of proof of non -negligence lies on the bailee, the Courier Company did not choose to examine its employee who had taken the packet for transport to show that he had taken reasonable care and that the loss was due to reasons beyond his control. The State Commission, therefore, concluded that there was negligence on the part of the Opposite Partys employee and that the Opposite Party was vicariously responsible therefor.

AS regards the compensation claimed by the Complainants, the State Commission held that while the contention of the Opposite Party that it was liable for the loss to the extent of only Rs. 100/ - was not valid and binding, the claim of the Complainants for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - as loss and compensation was absurd. The State Commission observed that it cannot be believed that these documents cannot be reconstructed and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/ - and costs of Rs. 500/ - to the Complainants. In their appeal before us, the Appellants have detailed the reasons for the impossibility of rebuilding these important documents. The matter pertained to the mis -utilisation of funds by the Forest Range Officer at the Ulundurpet Range and his subordinate/Forester in the plantation work entrusted to them by the Regional Manager, Tirukoilpur. The steps in this work have been detailed in the appeal as follows : (a) An estimate was prepared with sketches and given to Forest Range Officer and Forester who are responsible for raising plantations, (b) They drew money from the Regional Managers Office now and then and carried out the work. The record of the work was periodically maintained in a printed format booklet called plantation journal, (c) The supervisory officer viz., Regional Manager periodically inspected and made his remarks in the plantation journal only, (d) On completion of the filed works, the Forest Range Officer sent a completion report together with a surveyed sketch in proof of the area planted, (e) The Regional Manager inspected the fields, surveyed and recorded his observations taking reference to the above said sketch, (f) If the work had not been done according to the specification of the sanctioned estimate and if there were variations and discrepancies in the actual execution of the work, the Regional Manager would record his remarks as such in the plantation journal and in the completion report, based on which only a charge -sheet would be issued for the recovery of the amount misutilised or misappropriated. In the instant case, as the work was not done properly and as the amount was misutilised, a charge sheet was sent to the officers concerned. A copy of the charge sheet was kept with the Regional Managers Office, (g) The delinquent officer was asked to come for a personal enquiry at the Regional Managers Office. The enquiry minutes were recorded hand -written by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the delinquent officer in token of their confirming the minutes so recorded. (h) As the Forest Range Officer is a deputationist from the Forest Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, the Regional Manager cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings on his own. He has to send the following documents to the Managing Director of the Corporation who after thorough scrutiny of records will submit it to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for concurrence, (i) Original Estimate, (ii) Copy of the Charge -sheet, (iii) Original Plantation Journal, (iv) Enquiry minutes recorded handwritten, and (v) Completion Reports with Regional Managers remarks. 8. The Appellants have averred in their appeal that all the aforesaid documents were in the packet given to the Respondent -Courier Company for delivery to the Managing Director of Forest Corporation at Trichy. They have further stated that of these documents (i) Copy of the charge sheet cannot be rebuilt as one copy was lost in transit and another copy was with the delinquent officers who refuse to part with it; (ii) Of the three copies of the completion report with sketches, two were sent to the delinquent officers and the office copy sent to the Managing Director through the Courier Company was lost. This cannot be rebuilt and if rebuilt, the delinquent officers might question the authenticity of the report and challenge it before a Tribunal; (iii) The plantation journal with field inspection remarks is only one book and it had no copies and cannot be rebuilt and field inspection cannot be undertaken all over again after a lapse of four years in the present case. The Appellants have observed that among these documents, only a copy of the estimate can be rebuilt. The Appellants have further mentioned that the Courier Company was told of the importance of the documents. They have also contended that contrary to the observation of the State Commission on page 2 of its order that the complaint filed by the Respondent was still under investigation, the complaint was closed as early as in December, 1991 itself. 9. The Respondent -Company has filed its counter cross -objections before us. In its counter, the Courier Company has pointed out that the complaint filed by it with the police about the loss of the packets is pending and that the Regional Office of the Forest Corporation has also filed a Police Complaint. It has further contended that the alleged loss is only a presumptive and anticipatory one on the assumption that it will not be possible to recover the misappropriated amount from the delinquent officials. It has stated that in law also, the claim of the Complainant is not tenable in view of the express stipulation in the contract limiting the quantum of damages and that the Complainants had agreed to it. The Company has further pleaded that if this Commission is of the view that there is any error in quantifying the damages, the entire case may be remanded to the State Commission with liberty for the parties to lead oral evidence and advance arguments. 10. We have gone through the records and heard both sides. It is a fact that the packet handed over to the Respondent Company has not been delivered at the designated place, although necessary courier charges were paid to the Company by the Complainant -Forest Corporation. We agree with the finding of the State Commission that the loss of the packet by the Company messenger amounts to negligence and that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Company. We are, however, of the view that given the importance of these documents as also the reported impossibility of rebuilding the same in an emergent event, it was the responsibility of the Regional Office of the Appellant Corporation to have arranged to keep a copy of the same with that office before parting with them; this is a simple office procedure. Even without going into the merits of the reasons adduced by the Appellants for the impossibility of rebuilding these records, it is far fetched to equate the liability of the Courier Company for its negligence to the quantum of misappropriated amount in the disciplinary case. The State Commission has rightly dismissed this claim of the Complainant for compensation, but it has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/ -. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to limit the quantum to Rs. 100/ - only. We, therefore, direct the Respondent -Company to pay to Complainant -Forest Corporation Compensation in the sum of Rs. 100/ - only and accordingly modify the order of the State Commission. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.