The Commission observed that the unrebutted Expert Commissioner's report showed that the damage was consistent with the machines having been dropped, thrown, or subjected to heavy impact and that the packaging did not conform to internationally accepted standards for transporting fragile machinery.

Facts:

The complainant, Rajan V.A., a tailor by profession, was running a tailoring business in Dubai. After winding up his business, he purchased four tailoring machines—a Juki embroidery machine worth 6,000 Dirhams (approximately ₹1,11,000), a zigzag machine worth 800 Dirhams (approximately ₹33,300), and two interlock machines worth 300 Dirhams each (approximately ₹5,550 each). On 7 June 2014, he entrusted the machines to DR Courier at Fujairah, UAE, for shipment to his native place in Kerala after paying the requisite courier charges.

The complainant alleged that when the consignment was delivered in India, all four machines were found in a badly damaged condition, rendering them completely unusable. He alleged that the damage occurred while the consignment was in the custody of the courier company, preventing him from starting a tailoring business in Kerala and causing him financial loss and hardship.

Alleging deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the courier company, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund of the value of the machines, ₹50,000 as compensation, and litigation costs.

Contentions of the Opposite Party:

The opposite party denied liability, contending that there was no consumer relationship between the parties as the consignment had been booked with a courier service in Dubai and not with it. It also alleged that the delivery note relied upon by the complainant was fabricated and further argued that the complaint had been filed after an unreasonable delay from the date of dispatch of the consignment.

Observation and decision:

The Commission rejected the courier company's contention that no consumer relationship existed, observing that the documentary evidence established an association between the UAE-based DR Courier, with whom the complainant booked the consignment, and the opposite party in India. It further noted that although the opposite party alleged that the delivery note was fabricated, it failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the allegation.

On the issue of deficiency in service, the Commission relied on the delivery note recording that the machines were received in a damaged condition and the Expert Commissioner's report, which concluded that the damage was consistent with the machines having been dropped, thrown, or subjected to heavy impact during transit. The Expert Commissioner also found that the packaging did not conform to internationally accepted standards for transporting fragile machinery. Since the opposite party failed to rebut this evidence, the Commission held that the courier company was deficient in rendering its service.

The Commission, however, declined to order reimbursement of the value of the tailoring machines, observing that the complainant had not produced documentary evidence such as purchase invoices, bills or receipts to establish their purchase price. Nevertheless, noting that the damaged machines prevented the complainant from restarting his tailoring business in Kerala and caused him hardship and financial loss, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization.

Case Title: Rajan V.A. v. D.R. Courier

Case No.: CC 225/16

Appearances

For the Complainant: Adv. N. Indiradevi, Thrissur

For the Opposite Party: Adv. Biju T.S., Cochin

Click Here to Read/Download Order