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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more