DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:790 of 2010] Date of Institution :10.12.2010 Date of Decision :09.12.2011 -------------------------------------- Sh. Sushil Nijhawan son of Sh. Baldev Raj Nijhawan resident of House No.909, Sector 12-A, Panchkula, Haryana. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Blazeflash Courier Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director, Corporate Office, Blazeflash House, IIIrd Floor, 2E/B, Jhandewalan Exten., New Delhi 110 055. 2. Blazeflash Courier Limited through its Manager/Authorised Signatory, Regd. Office: Unit No.10 & 11, J&K Industrial Estate Office, Mahakali Caves MIDC Signal, Andhri (E), Mumbai – 400 093. 3. Blazeflash Courier Limited through its Manager/Authorised Signatory, branch Office: SCO No.142-144, Basement, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. K. S. Arya, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Som Pal, Athorised Agent of the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Sushil Nijhawan has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; ii) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment etc. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he hired the services of OPs for delivery of a packet containing two jackets, one Shirt, one T-shirt and some dry fruits to his son at Mysore for a consideration of Rs.360/-. He handed over the said packet at the office of OP at Sector 17, Chandigarh on 9.7.2010. The packet weighed 3 Kgs. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.360/- as service charges. OP issued receipt (Annexure C-1) to this effect. According to the complainant, the said packet reached the destination on 12.7.2010. However, at that time, the packet was badly defaced and it was under weight. Seeing the condition of the packet, the son of the complainant smelt foul play. So, he got the said packet weighed. The said packet weighed 2 Kgs. Thereafter, the son of the complainant ranged the complainant to verify the contents of the packet. At that time, it was revealed that one jacket, one T-shirt and dry fruit were missing from the packet. According to the complainant, he approached the office of OP, Sector 17, Chandigarh and informed about the delivery of the packet in defaced condition and about the loss of the articles from it. Initially, the OPs assured that the matter will be looked into and the complainant will be duly compensated. However, later on, OPs refused to compensate the complainant. So, the complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs. As OPs failed to compensate the complainant in response to the said legal notice, so, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, it has been admitted that a packet weighing 3 Kgs was handed over to OP Branch, Sector 17, Chandigarh for being delivered at Mysore. According to the OPs, the said packet was delivered on 12.7.2010 at its destination. However, it has been categorically pleaded that the packet was not opened by their employees while it was in transit nor any article was taken out of it. The allegations of removal of articles have been totally denied by the OPs. Thus, according to the OPs, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. So, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The averments made in the complaint stands fortified by the affidavit of the complainant whereas the pleadings of OPs have been supported by the affidavit of Sh. Arvind Varshney, General Manager (Administration & Legal Affairs). 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the authorised agent appearing on behalf of the OPs and have perused the record. 6. From the receipt (Annexure C-1), it is apparent that the weight of the packet, which was handed over at the office of OP on 9.7.2010 was 3 Kgs. From the document (Annexure C-2), it is evident that the weight of the said parcel at the time of its delivery was 2 Kgs. However, from the receipt (Annexure C-1), it is apparent that the contents of the packet were not disclosed by the complainant at the time of handing over the same to the OPs. There is no mention on the receipt about the fact that the contents of the packet and their price was declared at the time of handing over of the said packet. In these circumstances, from the bald and self-serving deposition of the complainant, it is not proved that two jackets, one Shirt, one T-shirt and dry fruit were sent in the said packet and were taken out by the employees of OPs. However, from the documents of OPs themselves, it is apparent that the weight of the packet was 3 Kgs at the time it was handed over to OPs and its weight was 2 Kgs at the time of delivery at its destination. So, the packet has been tampered with. However, as the contents were not declared at the time of handing over of the packet, it is not proved as to what articles were taken out of the said packet. So, in these circumstances, from the evidence on record, deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved. However, it is not proved that one jacket, one T-shirt and dry fruit were taken out of the said packet. 7. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.100/- only in view of the clause printed on the receipt itself (Annexure C-1), which reads as under: - “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 to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment….” 8. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not taking due care of the packet handed over to them by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.360/- and a compensation of Rs.100/- besides costs of litigation. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OPs, jointly and severally: - (i) to refund a sum of Rs.360/- to the complainant; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.100/- as compensation to the complainant in accordance with the clause printed on the receipt (Annexure C-1); (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs the amount of Rs.460/- i.e. (Rs.360 +Rs.100) would attract an interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.10.12.2010 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 9th December, 2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.790 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 07.12.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 09.12.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
