1. THE present appeal has been preferred against the order of District Forum-I, Chandigarh dated 18.8.1999 in Complaint No. 695 of 1997 wherein the District Forum had dismissed the above complaint against the Courier Company on the ground that the complainant himself was deficient in providing the complete address, consequent to which his letter could not be delivered. Hence the complaint was found to be devoid of merit and dismissed.
2. BRIEFLY the complainant Wing Commander P.S.B. Sachdeva, now appellant hired on 24.4.1997 at Chandigarh the services of On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. after paying the requisite charges of Rs. 21/- for sending an envelop containing some share certificates at 36-D, Mubarak Colony, Sangrur (Punjab). However the envelope in question was returned on 28.4.1997 to the complainant with the remarks from the Sangrur Branch of the above mentioned Courier Company that there was no street ''D'' in Mubarak Colony and hence the addressee could not be located. But since the appellant could get the same envelope delivered to the same addressee on 1.5.1997 sent through another Courier Company M/s. AIR State Couriers on 29.4.1997. He instituted a complaint in District Forum-I alleging deficiency in service on the part of On Dot Courier and claimed compensation on account of loss of dividend, telephones calls made for the same purpose and inconvenience suffered by him during the process. The respondent in its reply stated that the envelope could not be delivered because the address furnished by the complainant was not complete and consequently they should not be held liable for the alleged deficiency.
During the course of arguments in appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the address furnished was complete and showed one letter delivered successfully at the same address through Indian Postal Service and also stressed that the communication sent at the above mentioned address could get successfully delivered through another courier. In reply Mr. K.S. Narang, the authorised representative of the On Dot Courier stated that the address may be sufficient and complete for Indian Postal Service purposes though it may not be so for delivery through private Courier Company. This contention is not acceptable.
After perusal of the record and hearing, we have reached the conclusion that the respondent-Courier Company has been clearly deficient in service vis-a-vis this complainant. If the same address is complete for the purpose of delivery by Postal Department and other couriers the plea of incomplete address given by the respondent-Courier Company is negated. Had the delivery man of the respondent-Courier Company made report effort, the envelope certainly would have been delivered.
3. REGARDING the quantum of compensation we had the occasion to go through Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)=1986-1996 CONSUMER 2428, wherein the Supreme Court held that the compensation for deficiency in service in such cases is limited to the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties. Clause 4 of the terms and conditions agreed upon by both the parties in this case is reproduced as under :
