The nub of the matter is to determine whether a service provider is liable to pay compensation on account of faulty service when the consumer is also responsible to a certain extent? The respondent handed over a mobile phone to the appellant company with clear instructions for it to be delivered to a particular intended consignee-a woman, via self-collection, and even paid for insurance coverage. A “self-collection courier service” means a delivery service where the customer and/or the intended recipient collects the shipment/parcel from a designated location, such as a store or a locker, rather than having it delivered directly to a desired address. However, instead of delivering the item to the intended recipient even though the said consignee was an impersonated character, the appellant-company was obligated not to deliver it to a third person. The very concept of “self-collection” implies that the parcel should only be handed over upon strict verification of the identity of the recipient, especially when the item is valuable and insured. The failure to verify identity and the handing over of the parcel to an unauthorised person constitutes a breach of contractual duty as well as negligence. In fact, the fraud, which the intended consignee committed with the respondent, was materialised because of the inefficiency and breach of duty on the part of the appellant-company by handing over the mobile phone to the irrelevant person.
In light of the facts and the admitted fault by the appellant company, the return of the mobile phone at a later stage does not undo the breach, nor does it negate the claim for damages, particularly, where there has been mental distress, delay, and inconvenience caused to the respondent/consumer. Therefore, the impugned judgement does not suffer from any infirmity.
For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.