Decided on September 10,2009

Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Prabha Shah Respondents


M.L.SAHNI,J - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum -VII, Shaikh Sarai, New Delhi whereby the appellant have been directed to pay to the complainant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) a sum of Rs.50,000 as cost of painting, Rs.6,000 towards cost of packing and forwarding charges and Rs.30,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and suffering.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to the present appeal, precisely stated, are that the respondent who is deaf by birth is an expert painter having held 25 solo exhibitions of her paintings in India and abroad, whose works have been recognized throughout the world and her paintings had been displayed in the Rashtrapati Bhawan as well. According to the respondent her paintings have market value ranging between Rs.50,000 and Rs.1,50,000. She sent one of such paintings on 29.3.2007 to her overseas buyer, namely Mr. Ben Thancanamootoo in U.K. through the appellant vide consignment note No.54898515. It is alleged by the respondent in her complaint filed before District Forum that she was informed by her customer on 3.4.2007 that the packing of the painting had been damaged during transit and when it reached the buyer it had wrinkles and was damp. According to her, this has happened due to utter negligence on the part of the appellant. Thus they are guilty of deficiency in service. The respondent claimed Rs.50,000 as cost of the painting along with Rs.6,000 as cost of packing and forwarding charges and Rs.40,000 as compensation for mental agony.
(3.)THE appellant contended before the learned District Forum that there was no record produced by the respondent to show that the parcel contained any valuable article like alleged painting, booked by the respondent, nor she made any declaration with regard to the actual and correct nature of the goods in the parcel. It also averred that the contents about valuable painting had never been brought to the notice .the appellant nor the same was declared on the parcel.
We have heard the respondent through her Authorized Representative, she being deaf and dumb, who has also filed written submissions in the form of reply to the appeal We have also heard the counsel for the appellant who has reiterated that the respondent had ever declared the contents of the parcel and, therefore, it was not possible for them to know about the value which has been wrongly assessed by the learned District Forum at Rs.50,000 on the basis of vague and bald statement of the respondent directing them to refund the same.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.