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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more