Haryana

Sonipat

285/2014

MS/ KAICO DEER ABRASIVE PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S ON DOT COURIER,2. ON DOT COURIER PANIPAT,3. ON DOT COURIER GANNAUR,4 ON DOT COURIER DELHI,5 A - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

23 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                                     Complaint No.285 of 2014

Instituted on: 21.10.2014                    

Date of order: 23.10.2015

 

 

M/s Kaico Deer Abrasive (P) Ltd., Plot no.479, Phase I, Industrial Estate, Barhi Distt. Sonepat through its Auth. Rep. Mukesh Kumar son of Ranbir Singh.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.M/s On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. G-27, Express Tower, Azadpur, Delhi through its Manager.

2. M/s On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. Sanjay Chowk, Panipat through its Branch Manager.

3. M/s On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. through Shri Balaji Express,Devi Lal Chowk, Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat through its Incharge.

4. M/s On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi-15 through its Managing Director.

5.M/s Azad Scientific and Trading Co., 7-UA, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-07 through its Manager.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Rahul Garg, Adv.for respondent no.1 and 4.

           Respondent no.3 given up by complainant’s counsel

            On 08.09.2015.

           Respondents no.2 and 5 ex-parte.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased one Stirneer Complete Machine from respondent no.5 on 7.8.2014 for Rs.19845/- which was to be delivered to the complainant to respondents no.1 to 4. The respondent no.5 booked the said machine which was to be delivered to the complainant, with the respondents no.1 to 4  vide courier docket no.813985206 dated 7.8.2014. But the said machine was not delivered to the complainant. The complainant contacted the respondents no.2 and 3 at Panipat and Ganaur, but of no use.   The complainant also contacted the respondents no.1 and 4 and enquired about the non delivery of the machine, but of no use, while in the status report they have wrongly mentioned/shown the delivery of the machine on 28.8.2014 with signatures. This wrongful act of the respondents no.1 to 4 has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 and 4 has only contested the present complaint by filing their reply, whereas respondent no.3 was given up by ld.complainant’s counsel on 8.9.2015 and respondents no.2 and 5 were proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondent no.1 and 4 in their joint written statement has submitted that there is no previty of contract between the complainant and respondents no.1 to 4. As per terms and conditions of the consignment note, the respondents no.1 and 4 have specifically limited liability to a maximum of Rs.100/- per consignment for any loss to the consignment within India and to a maximum of US$ 100/- for international consignments.   As per the system of the respondent no.1 and 4, the consignment was delivered well in time.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 4 and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by  the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the machine which was booked by the complainant from the respondent no.5 on 7.8.2014, who further booked the said machine with respondents no.1 to 4 vide courier docket no.813985206 dated 7.8.2014 for its delivery to the complainant, was never delivered to the complainant, whereas in the status report, the respondents no.1 to 4 have wrongly mentioned/shown the delivery of the machine on 28.8.2014 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 to 4.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 4 has submitted that there is no previty of contract between the complainant and respondents no.1 to 4. As per terms and conditions of the consignment note, the respondents no.1 and 4 have specifically limited liability to a maximum of Rs.100/- per consignment for any loss to the consignment within India and to a maximum of US$ 100/- for international consignments.   As per the system of the respondent no.1 and 4, the consignment was delivered well in time.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 4 and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

4.       After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1,2 and 4. 

 

         As per Annexure C3, the consignment was forwarded to Balaji Exp (Barhi Ganaur) and the same was in transit.  Ex.C3 and C4 are the track record of the same consignment. As per Annexure C4, the consignment was delivered on 28.4.2014, but no report regarding delivery of the consignment to the complainant has been placed on record by the respondents.   Moreover, as per Annexure C5, the consignment was delivered at Panipat.  The delivery of the consignment was made to the wrong person and the same was not delivered to the complainant at any point of time as the address of the complainant pertains to village Barhi, district Sonepat.

         Further more, on 8.9.2015, Shri Rahul Garg, AR of respondent no.1 and 4 has made a statement that the respondent no.3 (M/s On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. through Shri Balaji Express,Devi Lal Chowk, Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat )  had left the company.  He has also deposed that the company has to recover the amount of Rs.20000/- to Rs.30000/- from the respondent no.3 and now respondent no.3 is not the business associate of the respondent no.1 and 4 at Ganaur.

         From the above, it is proved that the complainant not only has suffered a loss of Rs.19845/-, but has also suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment at the hands of the respondents no.1,2 and 4. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.1,2 and 4 to make the payment of Rs.19845/- to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1,2 and 4.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 23.10.2015