Visit BlogPublished Date:
08-Dec-2010
Print this article 
shipping-exchange
Holding the courier company responsible for "deficiency in service", the commission, citing a Supreme Court judgment, said, "... so long as the goods are in the custody of the carrier, it is the duty of the carrier to take due care as he would have taken of his own goods and would be liable, if any loss or damage was caused to the goods on account of his own negligence or criminal act or that of agent and servants.''
The case dates back to April 23, 1996, when Wartsila booked a consignment of a machine with Skypak. The courier agency forwarded the same to Chennai, through its office in Kolkata. At the time of the booking, Wartsila had made it clear that the consignment was to reach Chennai within the next 48 hours. A document, detailing the cost of the cargo as well as the delivery time frame, was attached to the consignment. Wartsila had declared Rs 1.04 lakh as the cost of the consignment. However, the cargo never reached Chennai. Skypak later informed Wartsila the consignment had been lost in transit. On October 15, 1996, Wartsila demanded that the courier firm reimburse the cost of the misplaced cargo. Skypak shot down Wartsila's claim, saying that as the consignment was lost in transit, the company was liable to pay only Rs 1,000. Wartsila filed a consumer complaint in 1997, alleging deficiency in service and demanding a reimbursement of Rs 1.04 lakh.
In an order passed in February 1999, the District Consumer Forum directed Skypak to pay the amount to Wartsila. Aggrieved by the forum's order, Skypak filed an appeal in Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in July 1999. Representing Wartsila, advocate Uday Wawikar said it was the responsibility of the courier firm to pay the amount as his client had declared the value of the consignment. Counsel for Skypak contended that the terms and conditions printed on the receipt made it clear that in case a consignment is misplaced, the courier company's liability was limited to Rs 1,000.
The state commission, presided over by S R Khanzode and comprising member Dhanraj Khamatkar, observed that no terms and conditions were printed on the receipt issued by Skypak. The state commission held that the courier company can't be absolved of its liability after it's been proved that there was "clear-cut deficiency in service" on Skypak's part.
The case dates back to April 23, 1996, when Wartsila booked a consignment of a machine with Skypak. The courier agency forwarded the same to Chennai, through its office in Kolkata. At the time of the booking, Wartsila had made it clear that the consignment was to reach Chennai within the next 48 hours. A document, detailing the cost of the cargo as well as the delivery time frame, was attached to the consignment. Wartsila had declared Rs 1.04 lakh as the cost of the consignment. However, the cargo never reached Chennai. Skypak later informed Wartsila the consignment had been lost in transit. On October 15, 1996, Wartsila demanded that the courier firm reimburse the cost of the misplaced cargo. Skypak shot down Wartsila's claim, saying that as the consignment was lost in transit, the company was liable to pay only Rs 1,000. Wartsila filed a consumer complaint in 1997, alleging deficiency in service and demanding a reimbursement of Rs 1.04 lakh.
In an order passed in February 1999, the District Consumer Forum directed Skypak to pay the amount to Wartsila. Aggrieved by the forum's order, Skypak filed an appeal in Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in July 1999. Representing Wartsila, advocate Uday Wawikar said it was the responsibility of the courier firm to pay the amount as his client had declared the value of the consignment. Counsel for Skypak contended that the terms and conditions printed on the receipt made it clear that in case a consignment is misplaced, the courier company's liability was limited to Rs 1,000.
The state commission, presided over by S R Khanzode and comprising member Dhanraj Khamatkar, observed that no terms and conditions were printed on the receipt issued by Skypak. The state commission held that the courier company can't be absolved of its liability after it's been proved that there was "clear-cut deficiency in service" on Skypak's part.