DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 75 of 20-03-2007<br /> Decided on :21-05-2007<br /> <br /> 1.Gurvakil Singh C/o Jawandha Automobiles, 100' Chowk Opp Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road, Bathind.<br /> 2.Tarvinder Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh R/o Village Hari Ke Kalan, Tehsil & District Mukatsar.<br /> Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Blazeflash Couriers Limited, Corporate Office at Blazeflash House, 2E/8, Jhandewala Extension, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Chairman.<br /> 2.Svebitu Courier Serfice Faridabad, Tehsil & District Faridabad (Haryana) through its Prop./Manager.<br /> 3.Blazeflash Courier Service, Room No. 5 Shiva Lodge, Near Railway Station Bathinda through its Manager Pawan Kumar Garg.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Balraj Singh,Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar,Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainants have preferred this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to pay them compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- incurred by them towards expenses besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainants lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> 3. Complainant No. 1 is the office Incharge/Manager of Jawandha Automobiles, 100' Chowk, Opposite Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. Jawandha Automobiles deals in sale and purchase of second hand cars and other automobiles. On 18.11.06 complainant No. 2 purchased one Zen Car No. DL-4CH-3092 through complainant No. 1 from Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary of Faridabad (Haryana). Consideration had passed on the same day through Jawandha Automobiles and Sh. Sanjay Bhatia, car dealer was from the side of owner/seller. On 18.11.06 S/Sh.Sanjay Bhatia and Sandeep Chaudhary told them (complainants) that original registration certificate, insurance documents and Form No. 29 & 30 for the transfer of the ownership of the car would be sent through courier after completion of all the formalities. On 27.11.06, Sh. Jagdev Singh, employee of Sh. Sanjay Bhatia, Car dealer sent above said original documents to complainant No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 who is the Branch/Franchise of opposite party No. 1 vide receipt No. 218258019 dated 27.11.06. Sh. Sanjay Bhatia informed them telephonically that he has sent the documents through courier i.e. opposite parties. After one week, complainant No. 1 contacted Sh. Sanjay Bhatia to enquire about the documents who told him that he had already sent the documents to him through opposite party No. 2 and they were to be delivered at Bathinda by opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 is the Branch of opposite party No. 1. As opposite parties did not deliver any courier to complainant No. 1 at the address given to opposite party No. 2, complainant No. 1 went to the office of opposite party No. 2 on 11.12.06 for enquiring about non-delivery of the courier No. 218258019 and gave a written representation regarding loss of the packet. Representation was received by Mr. Mohit an employee of opposite party No. 2 on that day. Opposite parties did not give satisfactory reply. Complainant No. 1 waited for 10 days for the delivery, but to no effect. Till date, packet sent through courier has not been received. Complainant No. 1 had no other option but to get the duplicate registration certificate from the Registering Authority, Janakpuri, New Delhi. He visited this authority four times. They (complainants) had to get affidavit, Form No. 29 & 30 and other documents pertaining to transfer of the Registration Certificate again from the vendor/owner. They incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 16,000/-. Complainant No. 2 has also lost insurance policy/cover note. He suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- as car was fully insured. They allege that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. They further allege that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, they have undergone mental tension, agony and harassment.<br /> 4. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed reply of the complaint stating that complaint is not maintainable. Complainants are neither consignors nor consignees of the envelop booked against consignment note No. 218258019 dated 27.11.06. They being strangers have no locus standi to file the complaint. They are not consumers as they did not avail courier services. Hence complaint needs dismissal for want of locus standi, privity of contract and consideration. No cause of action has arisen in favour of complainants. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Complaint has been filed to exercise pressure. It is in abuse of process of law. It stands admitted that one envelop was received from opposite party No. 2 against consignment note No. 218258019 dated 27.11.06 which in normal and usual course ought to have been delivered to the addressee. Envelop was booked by one Sh.Jagdev Singh and was meant for delivery to M/s. Jawandha Automobiles, Bathinda. They (opposite parties) keep the record of delivery only for one month due to paucity of space. Neither consignor nor consignee had lodged any complaint. Accordingly record of delivery has been weeded out. Without prejudice to the above claim as made out is hit by the Doctrine of Limited Liability. In case the envelop is not delivered to the addressee, then the same would have been lost in transit. The liability as undertaken in the consignment note is confined to Rs. 100/-. Impugned consignment note constitutes a special and an independent contract. Its terms are binding on the consignor/consignee. Relevant terms of the booking are as under :-<br /> “The liability of Blazeflash for any loss or damage to the consignment in transit or for any delay in delivery of the consignment shall be strictly restricted/limited to Rs. 100/- for each domestic consignment and Rs. 1,000/- for each international consignment. Further Blazeflash shall also not be responsible for any consequential losses, damages or compensation. No claim or complaint shall be entertained after one month from the date of consignment note as we do not keep records pertaining to proof of delivery after expiry of the said period. The above condition of booking are in additional to the terms and conditions mentioned on the reverse, which have been read over to me/us and have been understood are accepted to me/us consignor himself shall collect the P.O.D. From us, within one week of booking.”<br /> If it is taken for arguments sake that there is some element of deficiency in service, liability is upto Rs. 100/-. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of their averments in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence photocopy of courier receipt (Ex. C-1), photocopy of cash receipt (Ex. C-2), photocopy of registration certificate (Ex. C-3), photocopies of new registration certificate (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5), photocopy of letter dated 11.12.06 ( Ex. C-6), Certificate regarding authority letter (Ex. C-7), Affidavits of complainants No. 1 & 2(Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9) respectively.<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties reliance has been placed on affidavit of Sh. Arvind Varshney (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of proforma of courier receipt (Ex. R-2).<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 8. Principal argument advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties on the legal side is that complaint is not maintainable as complainants are not consumers.<br /> 9. Submissions of Mr. Balraj Singh, learned counsel for the complainants are that complainants are consumers as M/s. Jawandha Automobiles was the beneficiary of the documents which were sent by Sh.Jagdev Singh employee of Sh. Sanjay Bhatia through opposite party No. 2 which is the franchise of opposite party No. 1.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as under : <br /> “Consumer” means any person who -<br /> (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; <br /> (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.<br /> Explanation – For the purposes of this clause “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.” <br /> 11. Complainants have themselves pleaded that complainant No. 2 had purchased Zen Car through complainant No. 1 from Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary of Faridabad (Hyderabad). Consideration was passed by him on the same day through M/s. Jawandha Automobiles. Sh. Sanjay Bhatia car dealer acted on behalf of owner/seller. On 27.11.06 Sh. Jagdev Singh employee of Sh. Sanjay Bhatia had sent the documents pertaining to the transfer of car to M/s.Jawandha Automobiles through opposite party No. 2 vide receipt No. 218258019. Courier has not been received till date. Complaint has not been filed by Sh. Jagdev Singh who availed the services of opposite party No. 2, a franchise of opposite party No. 1. As per averments in the complaint, Sh. Jagdev Singh availed the services of opposite party No. 2 for consideration. Copy of the courier receipt is Ex. C-1. In other words, consignor is Sh. Jagdev Singh employee of Sh. Sanjay Bhatia who acted on behalf of the owner/seller i.e.Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary. Consignee as per receipt is M/s. Jawandha Automobiles, Bibiwala Road, 100 Ft Chowk, Opposite Clock Tower, Bathinda. No doubt M/s. Jawandha Automobiles has given authority to complainant No. 1 to file the complaint but this does not entitle Sh.Gurvakil Singh to file it in his independent capacity. It has been filed by Sh. Gurvakil Singh whose address is C/o Jawandha Automobiles 100' Chowk, Opp. Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. Complainants are neither consignors nor consignees of the envelop booked against consignment note No. 218258019 dated 27.11.06. They have not availed the services of the opposite parties against consideration. There is nothing on the record that they have paid any courier charges to any of the opposite parties. They are not beneficiary for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment. Opposite parties have no privity of contract with complainants as they did not engage the courier services of the opposite parties. Hence, they are not consumers. Accordingly, merits of the case are not being touched by us.<br /> 12. Since complainants are not consumers as has been discussed above, this complaint before this forum is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to cost. However, it is made clear that complainants are at liberty to get their grievances redressed before any other competent authority/court, if so advised and permitted by law.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 21-05-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member