Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/52

Manisha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Akash Ganga Courier - Opp.Party(s)

sh Gurinderjit Singh

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                Complaint No. CC/52/15 of 3.3.2015

                                Decided on:     22.6.2015

 

Manisha alias Tania wife of S.Ravinder Singh, resident of House No.B-7/310,Rose Garden Avenue,L.G.Patiala.

       

 

                                                        …………...Complainant

                                Versus

1. Akash Ganga Courier Limited, Branch Office,Patiala Chadha Enterprises, Near Sahani Medical, Near Sher-E-Punjab Market, Patiala through its Branch Manager/Authorized Employee.
2. Akash Ganga Courier Limited, Head Office 784-785,DB Gupta Road, Faiz Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

 

                                                        …………….Ops

 

                                Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                QUORUM

 

                                Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                               

                                                               

Present:

For the complainant:       Sh.Ravinder Singh, Advocate

For Ops:                          Sh.Balkar Singh,Advocate     

       

                               

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that she had booked a parcel containing Rakhies with Op no.1 on 2.8.2014 for being sent to her brothers  at Shimla and she paid Rs.45/- for the same. The parcel bearing docket No.81044809 failed to reach its destination although it was assured by Op no.1 at the time of the booking of the parcel that the same will be delivered within 48 hours. The festival of Rakhi had to take place on 10.8.2014 but the rakhies failed to reach  to the brother of the complainant till evening. On 8.8.2014, when the complainant had enquired from Op no.1 about the delivery of the Rakhies, she was assured by the Op through mobile phone No.93567-58352 that the parcel will be delivered at the earliest and possibly by the morning of the next day.She was informed by the Op that it will be delivered definitely on the day of the festival of Rakhi but the same could not be delivered by the Op.
2. It is averred by the complainant that the festival of Rakhi is a sacrosanct event regarding the relationship between brother and sister. The brothers of the complainant kept awaiting the Rakhies but till after noon of the day of Rakhi, the Rakhies had not been delivered .When the complainant enquired again, the Op switched off its mobile phone thereby resulting into the disappointment, harassment as also the mental agony experienced by the complainant.
3. The complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 22.8.2014, pointing out to their notice the deficiency of service, which was replied by the Ops stating that they were trying to know the status of the packet and she was asked to bear with them. Ultimately the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) with a request to direct the Ops to refund her the costs of the Rakhies i.e. Rs.300/-; to pay her Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment, humiliation and mental agony experienced by her; to pay her Rs.10,000/- ,the expenses of the litigation and further to award her Rs.5000/-towards the costs of the complaint.
4. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as she has suppressed the true and material facts and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Akash Ganga Courier 38, Anaj Mandi, Shimla (H.P.)  who is said to be a necessary party. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the Ops that the complainant had booked the Rakhies with Op no.1 on 2.8.2014 to be sent to Shimla. Op no.1 had sent to parcel to M/s Akash Ganga Courier, 38,Anaj Mandi ,Shimla, which is being managed by the Branch Manager, Mr.Vikas. It was the duty of Mr.Vikas to deliver the parcel to the consignee. The parcel has not been received by Op no.1 and therefore, the same is presumed to have been delivered to the consignee. The Ops are not aware about the whereabouts of the parcel. It was an ordinary parcel and the same was not got insured.
5. It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that it is very much mentioned on the receipt issued by Op no.1 regarding booking of the parcel that ‘in case of lost, theft and the mis-handling of the booked consignment, maximum liability of the company/franchise shall not exceed the sum equivalent to four times of the courier charges’ and in that way, the complainant is entitled to four times of the courier charges i.e. Rs.45x4=Rs.180/-. The ops had given the reply to the legal notice, got served by the complainant upon the Ops.
6. The Ops have also raised the objections about the jurisdiction of the Forum to try the complaint. Ultimately, It was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, her sworn affidavit, Ex.CB, the sworn affidavit of Mr.Kumar Gaurav alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C4 and her counsel closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Surjit Singh, Branch Manager of Op no.1 along with document Ex.OP1 and closed their evidence.
9. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
10. Ex.C1, is the courier receipt, issued by Op no.1 , regarding the consignment booked by Ravinder Singh, who apparently appears to be the husband of the complainant , to be sent to the consignee at Shimla, on 2.8.2014 .It is admitted by the Ops that the complainant had booked the consignment with Op no.1 and that the same had been sent to M/s Akash Ganga Courier,38 Anaj Mandi, Shimla.It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that they are not aware about the whereabouts of the consignment and that since the same has not been received back, the same is deemed to have been delivered to the consignee.
11. The Ops could very well know from the branch office of Op no.1 at 38,Anaj Mandi, Shimla , as to whether the consignment had been received by it or not. After all the consignments booked with Op no.1 are sent through some  system/record and one or the other record is maintained regarding the delivery of the same by the concerned  official of Op no.1 to the office of Op no.2 at Shimla and to the consignee. In case the consignment had not reached the destination i.e. Akash Ganga Courier,38 Anaj Mandi, Shimla, it would only mean that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The Ops could very well disclose about the status of the parcel booked by the complainant with Op no.1 , vide receipt Ex.C1 but the Ops have not disclosed about the status of the same.Here, it may be noted that the complainant has produced in evidence the sworn affidavit Ex.CB of his brother Mr.Kumar Gaurav r/o Hata Lala Diwan Chand, Shakti Niwas, Chakkar Shimla that he had not received the Rakhies booked by his sister with Op no.1 on 2.10.2014.
12. The complainant had booked the parcel containing Rakhies with Op no.1 on 2.8.2014 hoping that the same will be delivered to her brother at Shimla before the day of festival of Rakhi which had to take place on 10.8.2014.We can very well understand the importance of the festival of Rakhi in as much as it is a festival of representing the pious relationship between brother and sister and it has got its own sentimental value on its occasion. A brother on coming to know that his sister had sent the Rakhies for him and that the same did not reach him  certainly makes him dis-appointed and similarly , it happens with the sister when she comes to know that the Rakhies sent by her to her brother had not reached them. Therefore, the importance of the event has got its sentimental value, which can not be valued in terms of money.
13. It was submitted by Sh.Balkar Singh, the learned counsel for the Ops that as per the terms and conditions of the booking receipt,Ex.C1, the liability of the Ops can not exceed more than four times of the booking amount as it is provided in condition No.2: “In case of lost, theft, damage, mishandling and/or misuse of booked consignment the maximum liability of the company/franchise shall not exceed to the sum equivalent to four times of courier charges in any case”.
14. Apparently, the courier receipt, Ex.C1, does not bear the signatures of Sh.Ravinder Singh, who had booked the consignment with Op no.1. In the case of the citation Tirtha Traders Versus Blaze Flash Courier Ltd. and Anr. 2010(1)CPC 731, the Hon’ble H.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla made the following observations: “8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, as well as after going through the record of the case, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum below is not legally sustainable. Reason being that the District Forum below had wrongly placed reliance on terms and conditions contained in consignment note Annexure C-1, while indemnifying the appellant to the extent of Rs.100/-only.As these terms and conditions contained of Annexure C-1 are  not binding upon the appellant, for want of signatures of the appellant/sender on it. Thus there is no concluded contract between the parties. Thus the District Forum below had wrongly given undue weight to the terms and conditions of Annexure C-1.Relevant portion thereof is extracted hereinbelow:-

“…………..that 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………”. Thus, it would appear there was no concluded contract arrived between the complainant and the Ops and therefore, the same is not binding upon the complainant.

15. Nevertheless, we have to take into the account the deficiency of service in the matter of awarding the compensation to the complainant qua the harassment, humiliation and the mental agony experienced by her on account of the parcel of the Rakhies booked by her with Op no.1 having not reached her brothers. Consequently, we accept the complaint and direct the Ops to refund the price of the Rakhies i.e. Rs.300/- as disclosed in the complaint and further to provide the complainant with a sum of Rs.2000/-by way of compensation on account of the harassment, humiliation and mental agony experienced by her because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and the same is inclusive of the costs of the complaint. The order be complied by the Ops within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:22.6 .2015

 

           Sonia Bansal        Neelam Gupta                 D.R.Arora

       Member            Member                           President