COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE OF COURIER SERVICE
2. The case is at the stage of the decision. I have already heard the arguments and perused the file today. Now I proceed to discuss and dispose off the complaint in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.
3. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that he got the personal documents of his near relative mentioned in the complaint by assignment No.5436666 through LCS office Layyah to Malakwal on 24-08-2011; that the parcel reached to defendant No.2 on 26-08-2011; that the subordinate staff refused to deliver the packet; that the packet remained lying in the office for about 12/13 days; that no plausible reason has been given for the delay; that the parcel was returned to the office of defendant No.3 on 08-09-2011; that the claimant was not intimated about the return; that he himself contacted to know about the return and received the parcel back; that mental tension has been caused to the claimant due to non delivery of parcel; that the claimant has incurred charges on contacts with the defendants. It is requested that the damages of Rs.50,000/- should be recovered from the defendants.
4. The defendants has contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement by contending that the claimant has no cause of action; that he has not come to the court with clean hands; that the complaint is absolutely against the facts, against the law; that the complaint has been filed only to blackmail, harass the defendants; that the notice required under the law has not been issued to the defendants; that the packet sent by the claimant through the defendants reached its destination but could not be delivered due to incomplete address; that the telephone of the consignee was closed; that the packet was kept pending on telephonic request of the claimant for further try; that it was delayed due to holidays of Eid-ul-Fitr; that the packet could not have been delivered on the subsequent address provided by the claimant; that the packet was received back by the claimant on return; that the defendants have tried their best to provide the service; that the story has been concocted by the claimant; that the complaint is time barred; that it is misleading and incorrect. The defendants have requested that the complaint should be dismissed with costs and special costs should be granted to the defendants.
5. It is pertinent to note that although evidence is necessary to be recorded under S. 30 of PCP Act 2005 for disposal of the complaints by the Consumer Courts but since the procedural laws known as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC); the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (Cr.PC); the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984, (QSA); the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, (BBEA); special rules of evidence u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (NIA) are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of the Consumer Courts, as such the propriety demands that the regular evidence should not be recorded in such cases where the points for determination are mostly based on the copies of the admitted documents available in the file of the complaint or admitted in the pleadings just like the present case.
6. As far as the request for grant of damages is concerned, it is observed that it is settled law that the manufacturer or service provider is not liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs, specifically where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the product or provision of service except lack of utility/ benefit.
7. It is pertinent to note that the grant of damages is curtailed even under Contract Act, 1872 in which it is provided in S.73 to 75 that the damages should be proportionate to the loss and not excessive by mentioning that such compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. It is an embargo placed by the general law of contracts upon the powers of the courts about grant of damages.
8. It is also observed that further embargo on the quantum of damages to be awarded by the consumers courts has been placed by the law provided in S. 4, 10, 13 & 15 of PCP Act by declaring that the manufacturer or service provider shall be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by anticipated use of the product or provision of services that have caused damage but he shall not be liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs in such cases where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the provision of service except lack of benefit or loss of utility as such I find that the claimant is not entitled to the damages or compensation or litigation charges and counsel fee under the law of consumers.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the claimant that the destination of the parcel was Malakwal and not MBD but the parcel was returned from transit office at MBD without forwarding the same to Malakwal on the pretext that there was no office of the courier service at Malakwal and that the parcel should not have been booked for said locality in absence of the office which amounts to faulty service according to the contention of learned counsel for the claimant.
10. I have observed from the copies of the documents placed on record by the defendants that the parcel was dispatched from Layyah to MBD on 24-08-2011 & returned from MBD to Layyah on 27- 08-2011 and again sent from Layyah to MBD on 29-08-2011 and further sent from Layyah to MBD on 06-09-2011 & returned from MBD to Layyah on 08-09-2011 and returned to the claimant at Layyah on 24-09 2011. It means that the defendants were interested in the delivery of the parcel and the delivery was in their own benefit and there was no need to keep on returning the parcel from Layyah to MBD for onward transmission to Malakwal again and again. I am of the view that the service of the defendants cannot be declared faulty due to their efforts for delivery according to the said documents. There is no document on the record to show that the staff of the defendants had actually refused to take the parcel to Malakwal.
11. As far as the period of limitation is concerned, it is observed that the same is fixed as 30 days after expiry of the period of guarantee or warranty. The period fixed in the copy of the terms and conditions included in the file is seven days after delivery. The period of guarantee or warranty is therefore deemed to be seven days after delivery. The date of return of the parcel to the claimant as consignee is admittedly 24-09-2011. The complaint was necessary to be filed in 37 days after said date i.e., up to 30-10-2011. It has been filed on 05-11-2011, therefore it is time barred and without any request in the complaint about extension. The complaint is therefore liable to dismissal being time barred.
12. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
13. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
14. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is not preferred within period of 30 days u/s 33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
15. The file of this complaint is to be consigned to the record room of this court duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.