SMN CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL vs FIRST FLIGHT COURIERS (P) LTD.

THE complaint having been dismissed by the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by the complainant.

THE 2nd complainant Mr. C.T. Kurien (the 1st complainant being the SMN Consumer Protection Council) has given a packet on 2.7.1996 to the 2nd opposite party for transporting it to Pune. THE 2nd opposite party issued airway bill and received a sum of Rs. 70/- in cash. According to the complainants the contents of packet were a pair of scissors and 2 ash trays. THE further case of the complainants is that after 2 days, the opposite parties returned the packet stating that the glass items could not be transported. THEy also returned the freight charges received. THE complainants would submit that the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. On these allegations, the complaint has been filed claiming direction to the opposite parties to send the parcel containing the said articles and also to pay a nominal compensation of Re. 1/- and also a sum of Rs. 11/- for mental agony. The District Forum stated in its order that there was no representation for the opposite party and it has not referred to any written version at all. But in fact it is admitted before us that the opposite parties had filed a written version contesting the matter. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service proved as against the opposite parties. On this finding it dismissed the complaint.

Before us it was argued on behalf of the appellants/complainants that the finding and the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained as correct and are against the evidence and probabalities in the case. Now, according to the complainants, the parcel contained a pair of scissors and 2 ash trays but the opposite parties, as we see in the written version filed by them, contend that the parcel contained stuffed plastic jars and that is a prohibited item under the IOTA rules and therefore they could not transport it and hence they were constrained to return the parcel. But as we have seen above, according to the complainant, the contents were only a pair of scissors and 2 ash trays. The opposite parties would contend that the contents were stuffed plastic jars. Now the appellants/complainants produced before us a packet containing certain articles but at this length of time, we cannot rely on it because there is possibility of having tampered with the contents. However, since it is the definite case of the complainant that the contents were only a pair of scissors and 2 ash trays, the onus would be on the opposite parties to prove that the contents were different i.e., they were stuffed plastic jars. This onus has not been discharged by any acceptable evidence. That being the case, it stands unproved that the parcel contained any prohibited article. In these circumstances, whatever may be the real reason, the opposite party returning the parcel alongwith the freight charges cannot be held to be correct and that would amount to deficiency in service.

IN these circumstances, we order the opposite parties to transport the parcel containing the articles now produced before us to the addressee by next service. IN the circumstances of the case, we also find it quite reasonable that the complainant shall be awarded a compensation of Re. 1/- for breaking open the parcel and Rs. 11/- as damages for mental agony, shock and disappointment. These amounts shall be paid within 15 days from today. Thus the appeal is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.