The Blue Dart Express Limited                      .. Petitioner 
                      Vs 
Stephen Livera                                             .. Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr.. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member. Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member. Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member

PER JUSTICE D.P.WADHWA (PRESIDENT)

      Petitioner runs a courier service. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and in turn upholding the order of the District Forum. Respondent as a complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Hyderabad, complaining non-delivery of a letter by the petitioner-opposite party which was to be delivered to the addressee at Bangalore. Allowing the complaint District Forum awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also cost quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. 

     Ms. Cephy Livera, minor daughter of the complainant was to appear for entrance test of Karnataka University for admission to a medical college. She on 29.4.94 sent her application through the petitioner addressed to her relative Mr. Dephan Phinheira, Department of Chemistry, Christ College, Bangalore. She paid Rs.100/- as courier charges. There was a covering letter which contained instructions to Phinheira to submit the application to the appropriate authority, last date of which was a 4.5.1994. Petitioner did not deliver the letter to the addressee Phinheira but gave it to one Rajan on 30.4.94 stated to be working with Phinheira. Complainant was informed accordingly by the petitioner. Thereafter complainant came to know that the letter did not reach Phineheira. Complainant did not receive her hall ticket for her to appear in the entrance test and on 12.5.94 she rushed to Bangalore to ascertain the position. She came to know that the application had not been filed on time and that her letter had not been delivered to Phinheira. Result was that the complainant could not appear in the entrance test which was held on 17^th and 18^th May, 1994. She represented to the petitioner who informed her that the letter had been delivered to Rajan, a peon in the office of the addressee. It transpired that Rajan went on leave and by the time he returned, the date had already expired. Alleging deficiency in service, complainant approached the District Forum. She claimed refund of Rs.100/- paid as courier charges; Rs. 1500/- as expenses for going to Bangalore for making enquiry; and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal against this order was filed by the petitioner-opposite party which was dismissed and the order of the District was affirmed.

     The document which is the basis of the contract between the parties is in extremely small and fine print. Complaint was filed through the father of the complainant as the complainant was minor at the time she engaged the services of the petitioner-opposite party. District forum has recorded a finding that in the written version petitioner did not stated that the complainant or her father had signed the courier receipt and accepted the terms and conditions printed on its back. District Forum observed that there was some sort of signatures at the place for sender's signatures on the receipt but it did not look like a signature or initial of sender or her representative. It was, therefore, held that when the courier receipt did not clearly show that the sender or her representative had signed thereon and accepted the terms and conditions printed on its face or overleaf and the petitioner-opposite party also did not in so many words assert that sender or her representative had signed or initialed on the courier receipt and accepted the terms and conditions thereon, therefore, petitioner could not rely on them to non-suit the complainant or to limit its own liability. This condition limiting the liability of the petitioner, as noted above, is in small and fine print and as noted above it is not pleaded that attention of the sender or her representative was drawn to any such conditions of the courier service rendered by the petitioner. Then the article meant for Phinheira could not have been given to his peon without ascertaining if he was agent of Phineheira or was authorised to receive any such document or was usually receiving it for Phineheira . It could not be said that peon was `other person' on behalf of Phineheira to receive the document. If we refer to Order V Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure it is specifically mentioned that a servant is not a member of family within the meaning of that Rule which provides when defendant is absent from his residence at the time when service of summon is sought to be effected on him thereat and there is no likelihood of his being found thereat within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharthi Knitting co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 does not apply as that case did not consider small and fine print in a document in a standard form. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order of the State Commission for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-.