Haryana

StateCommission

A/344/2016

TRACK ON COURIER - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ CAPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV SHARMA

28 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    344 of 2016

Date of Institution:    20.04.2016  

Date of Decision :    28.09.2016  

 

M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited, C-143, Community Centre, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina, Delhi-110023 through its Assistant General Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      M/s Bajaj Capaital, B-201, Super Mart-I, DLF City, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, through its Vice-President Himanshu Maheshwari.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Ms. Rajni, C/o M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited, C-16, Amar Colony Market, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024.

3.      Mr. Satish, C/o M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited, EWS, Room No.239, Regency Park-II, Near Super Mart-I, Gurgaon-122001.

4.      Mr. Chandan, C/o M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited, EWS, Room No.239, Regency Park-II, Near Super Mart-I, Gurgaon-122001.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 to 4

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondents No.2 to 4 (service dispensed with).         

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated January 5^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by M/s Bajaj Capital-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein), was accepted directing the appellant-opposite party No.1 as under:-

“…we are inclined to hold that the opposite party No.1-Courier is liable to reimburse the said amount of Rs.27,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 07.03.2014 till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation as well as cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-. OP-1 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.”    

2.                The complainant-respondent No.1, booked a courier vide receipt No.BR00696763 dated 09.12.2013 with the appellant-opposite party No.1, which contained “Pashmina Shawl” worth Rs.27,000/-. The courier was to be delivered to Vasudeo Saboo, 209/210, Meghdoot B. Raheja Township, East Mumbai-400097. However, the courier was not delivered at the destination. The complainant inquired from the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite parties contested complaint by filing written version. They admitted that the courier was booked by the complainant but denied that the packet/courier contained shawl. It was stated that as per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties, as stipulated in the booking receipt/air way bill, of which Clause 3 says that sender must indicate the actual and correct nature of goods, clause 4 stipulates remedy in case of loss, theft etc. and clause 6 makes mandatory that in case of valuable parcel consignor should declare the value and pay guarantee charges @ 1% FOV for which separate receipts are issued by the opposite parties and in the absence of which no claim shall be entertained. It was further stated that the consignment was booked in the ordinary way and it was lost in transit between Gurgaon and Mumbai due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties. The opposite parties despite best of efforts could not locate the same. However, the opposite parties are ready and willing to pay 4 times the charges for booking or in the alternative Rs.2,000/-. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the appellant-opposite party No.1 as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

6.                Indisputably, the complainant had sent parcel containing shawl through courier of the opposite parties. It is also not in dispute that the courier was not delivered at the destination. Though, the opposite parties have denied that the parcel/courier contained “Pashmina Shawl”. In reply filed by the opposite parties, they admitted of having booked the article by the complainant through their employee. The complainant in paragraph No.1 of the complaint specifically pleaded that the respondent No.4, an employee of the opposite party No.1, had booked the article and charged the booking charges. In written submission, the opposite parties though denied the knowledge of the contents, however, admitted that it contained some sort of Scarf. Paragraph No.4 of the written version reads as under:-

“4.               That the contents of para 4 are denied as wrong and baseless. it is denied that the consignment was packed by the pick up boy of the opposite parties as alleged or that original retail invoice was put in the consignment by the pick up boy as alleged. It is reiterated that the Opposite party had no knowledge of the actual content of the consignment as packing was done by the complainant himself in which the opposite party had no role to play and the opposite party as told by the complainant trusted that the consignment contained some kind of a simple scarf which the opposite party vaguely saw. Unless and until Invoice, written declaration and other related documents are furnished by a consignor the opposite parties have no means to know anything about the contents of a consignment.”

7.                The opposite parties in their written version state that the courier packet contained Scarf.  This belies the entire version of the opposite parties because the contents of the article could only be seen if it was packed in the presence of the representatives of the opposite parties. There is admission by the opposite parties in their written version that their employee had seen the scarf while the same was being packed. So, the official of the opposite parties had knowledge about the contents of the courier packet. It is also not in dispute that the courier parcel was last in transit. Thus, onus shifted upon the appellant to disprove that it was different kind of scarf. The complainant has produced receipt (Annexure A-1) with respect to the purchase of “Shawl” from ‘ahujasons’. In view of this, the appellant cannot escape itself from its liability to pay compensation to the complainant.

8.                In view of the above, no ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.21,200/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 28.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL