Skip to main content

Law student wins case against courier company

Chanakya Sharma, (21), a student of National Law University in Lucknow,  contested for a year against an errant courier company in the consumer court in Ahmedabad and won on July 1.

This case has set two precedents the court adjudged that the courier company's liability printed on its receipt, which says that in case of any loss or damage the company shall not pay more than Rs 100, is against the public policy and ordered the company to pay a compensation of Rs 7, 000. Secondly, court admitted the case in Ahmedabad, where cause of action arose rather than the prevalent norm of accepting a case at the place of contract. The place of contract in this case was Jaipur.

Sharma, a resident of Jaipur hired the services of Overnite Express Ltd in Jaipur to send his project report titled Critical thinking and legal reasoning' on a condition of dropping it in the Nirma University, Ahmedabad on March 7, 2014. However, his project reached 7 days later causing him the loss of 15 marks on his project work.

"During the seven days, I called the courier service in Jaipur and Ahmedabad for 4-5 times a day but they didn't give me the exact status of my academic papers," said Sharma, who is presently doing his internship with State Commission for Consumer Dispute Redressal, Jaipur.

Finally, he filed a case at the consumer redressal forum in Ahmedabad intending to test consumers rights enshrined in the law. He filed a token compensation of Rs 10,000 only to cover up the expenses of his litigation.

He demolished the courier company's main argument which said that Ahmedabad court do not have jurisdiction to hear this case. "Though it was Jaipur where contract was signed but it was Ahmedabad where the cause of action arose," argued by the Sharma. He also presented case laws stating that private entities cannot impose upon ordinary citizens its conditions which are opposed to the public policy.

"I truly believe that there is an urgent need of spreading awareness about consumer rights. And after the long battle of more than a year, I believe that we can create a society where even an average consumer who is away from litigation acrobatics can get justice by the judicial mechanism present in the country," said Sharma.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Jaipur/Law-student-wins-case-against-courier-company/articleshow/48046925.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...