Adv.for the complainant - A.K.Mishra
Adv.for the O.P - S.P.Mishra
Date of filing of the case – 16.03.2016
Date of order - 28.02.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The complainant has preferred this case alleging deficiency in courier service. The case of the complainant is that, he had sent two Gionee mobile phones to R.V.Solution, Delhi by availing the service of the O.Ps. and paid the courier charges and risk premium total amounting to Rs.270/-. The complainant alleges that, while delivering the said parcel to R V Solution on dated 13.1.2016 only one phone has been delivered. The complainant submitted that by the time of sending the parcel its weight was 500 grams but at the time of delivery it was 254 grams. Hence the complainant claims loss of one mobile phone and prays for refund of price of one mobile phone and compensation.
2. Although notice has been served on O.P.No. 2, neither he appears nor filed his written version, and hence he was set expert vide order dated 11.1.2017. O.P.No. 1 contested the case by filing his written version. According to the O.P.1, by the time of sending the parcel through him the packet was sealed by the complainant and he has no knowledge about the numbers of mobile phone inside the parcel. Further the O.P.1 has averred that, the complainant has only avail a plain courier service and there is no agreement between the parties regarding the security of the materials. The O.P.1 submitted that he has no knowledge regarding the delivery of the parcel at Delhi.
3. Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record. It is seen from the money receipt issued by the O.P. No.1 that, the complainant had sent a parcel weighing 500 grams to RV Solution(P) ltd. New Delhi and paid Rs.250/- towards fright charge and Rs. 20/- towards risk charge on dated 7.1.16. It is also seen from the Xerox copy of the delivery statement filed by the complainant that, the parcel was delivered on dated 13.1.16 weighing only 254 grams. These evidence available on record shows that, there was loss in the parcel at the time of delivery. It is also seen from the money receipt issued by the O.P.1 that, there is a stipulation in the contract between the parties which was written in very small letter that, “Our liability for any loss or damage to the shipment is to the extent of Rs. 100/- only.” This stipulation does not bear the signature of the complainant, which shows that, this stipulation has not been explained to the complainant.
4. It is clear from the material available on record that the O.P. courier company has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the parcel was delivered to the consignee without any loss and no money was paid for the risk charges. Therefore loss in the delivery of parcel amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to compensation. The complainant in his complaint petition has assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.17,000/- which has not been disputed by the O.P. and hence the complainant is entitled to the same.
ORDER
The O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 17,000/-(seventeen thousands) to the complainant towards compensation for the loss of his parcel and to pay Rs.500/-(five hundred) towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
