Full Judgment
D. Appa Rao, President:
Oral:
1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter could be disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he sent a cover containing certificates and interview card to Chandarbhan Jaimini, H.No. 7/408, New Mahavir Colony, Sonepat District, Haryana on 4.4.2008 through the appellants couriervide receipt Ex. A3. The appellants instead of sending it to Sonepat District, sent it to Hyderabad. Later when questioned, they have informed that they have sent it mistakenly to Hyderabad address, however, he was informed that it would be sent to Sonepat but it did not reach Sonepat and the cover was returned on 23.4.2008 without service. In fact the date of interview was 22.4.2008 and though his wife attended the interview for the post of Librarian at Defence Research and Development Organization at Bangalore without certificates, she was not selected. She lost the appointment and, therefore, he sought a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.
3. The appellants despite the fact that they engaged an advocate, did not choose to contest the matter and were set ex parte before the District Forum.
4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs. A1 to A3.
5. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record, opined that in view of deficiency in service of the courier company and instead of sending the cover to Sonepat, Haryana, sent it to Hyderabad and this mistake has costed the complainant the job of his wife and, therefore, awarded Rs. 20,000 towards mental agony, Rs. 10,000 towards pain and suffering and costs of Rs. 2,000.
6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not consider that the very cover containing these certificates was returned to Andhra Bank, from whom the consignment was booked and that there was no deficiency in service on their behalf. At any rate the compensation awarded was highly exaggerated and prayed that the complaint be dismissed by allowing the appeal.
7. At the outset, we may state that there is no dispute that the complainant had booked a cover with the appellants courier company, by mentioning the address with bold letters on Ex.A1. He also mentioned his address as âBALKISHAN, PROBATIONARY OFFICER, ANDHRA BANK, BADVEL. It is also not in dispute that the courier company instead of sending it to Sonepat, Haryana, sent it to Hyderabad by mistake and in the process, the cover could not be delivered to the addressee. Later the cover was returned on 23.4.2008 by which date the interview was over and though she attended the interview, she could not produce her certificates and, therefore, she was not selected. These facts were not contradicted by the appellants by filing any counter.
8. Now the learned Counsel for the appellants contends that in fact the cover was returned on 10.4.2008 evidenced by daily delivery sheet wherein the seal of Andhra Bank was affixed. We may state that it was not the Andhra Bank that had booked the cover, in fact, it was the complainant, who booked the cover, therefore, returning it to Andhra Bank has no meaning. At any rate, there was an admitted mistake on the part of the courier company in not delivering the letter to the addressee. Since the complainant asserts that his wife had lost a job, in view of this mistake, he is entitled to compensation and claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000. The District Forum after considering the agony suffered by the complainant in this regard granted an amount of Rs. 30,000. This amount cannot be said to be on the high side. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
9. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Appeal dismissed.