Haryana

StateCommission

A/389/2016

ON DOT COURIER AND CARGO LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ATUL GOYAL - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.389 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 25.04.2016 and 05.05.2016

Date of Decision: 08.06.2016

 

1. On-Dot Courier 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015 through its Authorized person.
2. On-Dot Courier, Street M.C.Market, Near Joginder Mohan Batra Vasika Nawees, Old civil Hospital Road, Sirsa, Distt.Sirsa, through its authorized person.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Atul Goyal, aged 30 years S/o Sh.Subhash Chand, Prop. of Sidhi Vinayak Show Room, Gali Fashion Camp Wali, Sirsa.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Complainant booked two consignments on 30.10.2012 with appellants to be delivered at the given address. O.Ps. charged Rs.300/- and 700/- vide receipt Nos.626624328 and 626624327. O.Ps. delivered only one parcel.  Another parcel worth Rs.80,000/- was not delivered by O.P.No.2 and O.Ps. be directed to reimburse the same.

2.  O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that due to confusion and inadvertance delivery person did not mention consignment numbers in manifest/DRS. Due to error took a single receiving from the consignee despite delivering both the consignments. When complainant came to know about this error he filed this complaint.  As per terms and conditions, they are liable to pay Rs.100/- per consignment for any loss qua consignment within India (domestic) and to maximum of US$100/-  for international consignments.  Complainant is not covered by the definition of consumer as provided under section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Affidavit about non-joinder of parties, concealment of true facts, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 29.01.2016 and directed as under:-

“As discussed above, we accept the complaint  and   direct the Ops to pay the price of the items in question i.e. Rs.80000/- (rupees eighty thousand) within a period of three months from today, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 12.04.2013 till realization of the awarded amount.  O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to make the compliance of the order.”

 

4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom,  O.Ps.(appellants) have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant sent consignments for commercial purpose and that is why he is not covered by the definition of consumer and complaint is not maintainable. At the most they are liable to pay Rs.100/- for Indian consignment.  Learned District Forum failed to taken into consideration this aspect, so impugned order be  set aside.  He placed his reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in revision petition No.2533 of 2013 titled as Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs. M/s Bhaskar Textiles decided on 29.10.2014.

7.      This argument is of no avail.   In the present case the appellants have no concern with the consignment sent by the complainant. They were supposed to deliver the articles at the given address, which they have failed to do. They have not also produced any evidence regarding the delivery of both articles as alleged by them. They cannot restrict their liability to Rs.100/- because it is not proved by them that the value of the article was not mentioned in the bill.   Despite adjournments appellants have failed to produce copy of receipt, vide which the consignment was booked.  They have not produced any evidence to rebut the averments of the complainant about the value of the article, so impugned order dated  29.01.2016 cannot be set aside.

8.      Appellant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because in that case the goods were sent and the payment was to be made to the bank.  In that case the goods were sent through bility and courier was not involved. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

June 08th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 S.K.