AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE respondent herein, a practicing advocate, at Hyderabad filed a complaint CD. 38/90 against the appellant herein i.e. TNT Skypack Courier service, Hyderabad claiming compensation for non-delivery of packet addressed to Sri B. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate, 125 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court Buildings, New Delhi consisting of documents for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.
THE case of the complainant is that he sent a packet to Delhi consisting of certified copies, records alongwith a draft of Rs. 3400.00 on 28/8/1989 for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court of India and paid Rs. 60/- to the opposite party. But the papers were not delivered the next day or on any subsequent day. To the enquiries made, the opposite party gave discounteous and callous replies. Hence legal notice was issued on 3.121989 which was received by the opposite party on 9.12.1989. As no reply was given and packet was not delivered the above complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. In the counter the opposite party admitted booking of the consignment but contended that the transaction is a commercial transaction and the complaint is not maintainable and reserved its right to file counter on the merits of the case.
The District Forum, Hyderabad found that sending of papers by an advocate to another advocate is a professional service and is not a commercial transaction and hence the complaint is maintainable. It further found that the packet was not delivered which constitutes deficiency of service and by its order dated 12.10.90 awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 26.8.89 and costs of Rs.300/-.
IN this appeal, it is mainly submitted that the packet was delivered by the opposite party to the consignee and there was no delay in sending the same and that therefore, the finding of the District Forum that the packet was not delivered is not well founded. IN the appeal an affidavit by one Rajan, who was in the office of 125 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of INdia was filed. It was stated in the said affidavit that the disputed consignment which was booked on 26.8.89 was delivered on 28.8.89 and the said consignment was addressed to Sri B. Rajeswara Rao, 125 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of INdia, New Delhi. He also stated that he issued a certificate to the appellant on 5.10.90, stating that on 28.8.89 he received the consignment and handed over to Sri B. Rajeswararao, the addressee. Sri Ranganatham the Advocate-Complainant filed an affidavit stating that he sent the papers by courier service on. 26.8.89 to Sri B. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate, 125 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Sri B. Rajeswara Rao, came to Hyderabad in the last week of December, 1990. He informed Sri Ranganatham that the papers and draft were received by some other Advocates in the Chambers during his absence from Delhi. He informed that Special leave petition was filed on the basis of the earlier papers, and a second leave petition was filed on the basis of the second set of records and on the money sent again by the client. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that when Sri Ranganatham wrote a letter on 24.1.91 to Sri Rajeswara Rao asking for clarification with regard to the points mentioned in the affidavit, he did not receive any reply from him. It might be that Rajeswara Rao did not reply to the letter. From the affidavit of Sri N. V. Ranganatham, Advocate it is clear that Rajeswara Rao informed him orally that the papers were received, that special leave petition was filed on the basis of available earlier papers and second special leave petition was filed on the basis of the second set of records and money sent again by the client. It is therefore manifest that Rajan received papers by courier on 28.8.89 and he handed over the same to Sri B. Rajeswara Rao. It is also clear from the affidavit filed by Sri N.V. Ranganatham that Rajeswara Rao informed him subsequently in December, 1990 that special leave petition was filed on the basis of earlier papers which were received by him. So the opposite party delivered the consignment on 28.8.89 itself to one Rajan who was in the office of 125, Lawyers Chambers, and the same was handed over to Sri B. Rajeswara Rao. Hence the Gliding of the District Forum that the opposite party did not deliver the consignment is not correct. As the consignment was delivered on 28.8.89 promptly we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
THE opposite party did not state in the counter filed by it that the packet was delivered. Even to the registered legal-notice issued on 3/12/1980 by the complainant, the opposite party did not send any reply to the effect that the consignment was delivered. Thus the opposite party, as submitted by the complainant, is discounteous and callous and did not care even to send a reply to the legal notice. In these circumstances, we consider that the order of the District Forum awarding costs of Rs. 300.00 is just. We are not inclined to set aside the order relating to costs. The order of the District Forum directing payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation is set aside, in view of our finding that the packet was delivered. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. The awarding of costs by the District Forum is confirmed. Appeal partly allowed.