| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 545 of 08-11-2011 Decided on : 27-12-2011
M/s. Jai Shree Ganesh Enterprises, 216 Kamal Cinema Street, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its partner Sandeep Kumar Mukharjea S/o Sh. Swapan Kumar Mukharjea. .... Complainant Versus Blazeflash Couriers Limited, Corporate Office, Blazeflash House, 3rd Floor, 2E/8, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, through its Chairman/MD/Director. Blazeflash Couriers Limited, Registered Office, J&K Industrial Estate, Ground Floor, Unit No. 10/11, Office Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC Signal, Andheri (E) Mumbai 93, through its Chairman/MD/Director Blazeflash Couriers Limited, Branch Office, Railway Station Road, near Kamal Cinema, Bathinda, through Branch Manager/authorised person.
..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Exparte.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he had purchased various products including wallets and others from M/s. Brands Concepts Pvt. Ltd., Indore. Since the said products were not not found as per requirement, the complainant returned the said goods vide purchase return Invoice No. 54 dated 3-3-2011 and sent to the said company through courier service of the opposite parties by document/parcel No. C-190722063 dated 3-3-2011 weighing 10 Kgs. The opposite parties charged Rs. 90/- against the same in joint bill for Rs. 4770/- for various couriers/parcels. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the consignment would be delivered to the addressee in proper condition against proper receipt of stamp and signatures. The said courier was supposed to reach the addressee within 3-4 days but it did not happen so. The complainant contacted the opposite parties at Bathinda and they assured that they are making the inquiries and would intimate him at the earliest. After inquiring about the parcel from the opposite parties for 3-4 months, the opposite parties ultimately supplied delivery Run Sheet No. 60047 dated 9-3-2011 wherein they tried to show that the said courier has been delivered to the addressee. The complainant sent copy of that Run Sheet to the addressee for confirmation of delivery, but the said company sent letter dated 9-7-2011 confirming that no such parcel has been received at their end. Even perusal of copy Run Sheet shows that parcel has not been delivered as per the assurance of the opposite parties against proper stamp and signatures to the addressee. The complainant alleged that the said goods have been misappropriated by the opposite parties or has been delivered in wrong hand to some other person in connivance with such person to cheat and defraud the complainant, hence he has filed the present complaint. Registered AD notice of complaint were sent to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and dasti notice was sent to opposite party No. 3, but none appeared on their behalf and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. The complainant led exparte evidence. Arguments led by the counsel for the complainant heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant perused. The allegation of the complainant is that he had purchased various products including wallets and others from M/s. Brands Concepts Pvt. Ltd., Indore. Since the said products were not found as per requirement, the complainant returned the same vide purchase return Invoice No. 54 dated 3-3-2011 and sent to the said company through courier service of the opposite parties by document/parcel No. C-190722063 dated 3-3-2011 weighing 10 Kgs. The opposite parties charged Rs. 90/- against the same in joint bill for Rs. 4770/- for various couriers/parcels. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the consignment would be delivered to the addressee in proper condition against proper receipt of stamp and signatures, but the said courier has not been delivered to the addressee. To prove his version, the complainant has produced on file Ex. C-2 photocopy of courier receipt bearing No. 190722063 vide which the consignment was sent from Bathinda to Indore. Ex. C-4 is the Delivery Run Sheet bearing No. 60047 dated 9-3-2011. A perusal of this sheet reveals that at Sr. No. 14, the signatures have been shown against the consignment note Number of the complainant, but there is no stamp of the company in question/addressee. Ex. C-5 is the letter of M/s. Brand Concepts Private Limited, Indore, wherein they have confirmed that parcel Docket No. 190722063 has not been delivered to them. Ex. C-7 is the statement vide which various consignments have been sent at different stations by the complainant to different parties. A perusal of this statement shows that on 03-03-2011 vide consignment Note No. 190722063 one piece/consignment of 10 Kg weight was sent to Indore for which Rs. 90/- were charged by the opposite parties. The complainant has also produced on file affidavit Ex. C-8 of Sh. A K Tiwary (R.S.M.) of Branch Concepts Pvt. Ltd., R K Puram Colony, Indore wherein he has deposed in para Nos. 2 & 3 :- “...2 That Jai Shre Ganesh Enterprises, Bathinda, complainant had sent a parcel/courier to our company containing goods as described in purchase return invoice No. 54 dated 3-3-2011 as it had some complaint with respect to said goods valuing Rs. 43,796/- vide POD No. 190722063 dated 3-3-2011 through Blazeflash Couriers Limited and same were to be returned to our company. 3. That the above goods/courier/parcel has not been delivered to our company by the said courier. The deponent has seen the Delivery Run Sheet No. 60047 dated 9-3-2011 given by the said courier company at Serial Number 14 but the said entry has not been signed by any of the employees of the company. Our company receives the parcels/couriers etc., against proper receipt by signing and stamping the same while the said entry has not been stamped at all. Accordingly our company has charged full amount against the said goods from the complainant.” As discussed above, despite service of notice, the opposite parties did not contest the complaint and in these circumstances, the evidence produced by the complainant to prove his version, stands un-rebutted. Hence, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence produced on file by the complainant, this Forum is of the view that complainant sent his consignment of valuing Rs. 43,796/- to M/s. Jai Share Ganesh Enterprises, Indore as per Purchase Return Invoice Ex. C-3 through opposite parties vide Ex. C-2 for which they charged Rs. 90/-, but the said consignment has not yet been delivered to the addressed and as such, this act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Arjun Kumar Vs D.T.D.C., II (209) CPJ 462, wherein it has been held that:- “....Courier Services – Consignment not delivered – Absence of term in contract regarding non-delivery, wrong delivery, damaged delivery, not absolved courier from liability to perform its part of contract – Shortcoming, imperfection, inadequacy in performance amount of deficiency in service – Address mentioned in consignment very clear – No endorsement made in consignment, courier service only up to Dimapur – Place of address within operative limits of Dimapur Branch – OP guilty of deficiency in service proved – Compensation awarded.” Further, the reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in case titled Professional Courier & Anr. Vs Balkrishna, II (2009) CPJ 30, wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Courier Services – Certificates – Non-delivery of – Cover sent to Hyderabad instead of Sonepat, by mistake – Not delivered to addressee – Complainant's wife not selected in job interview – Mistake on part of courier company proved – Complaint allowed by Forum – Compensation of Rs.20,000 and Rs.10,000 awarded towards mental agony, pain and suffering respectively – Costs awarded – Order upheld in appeal.” In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with cost and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to deliver the aforesaid consignment to the complainant or in the alternative pay an amount of Rs. 43,796/- being the value of consignment to him. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the amount of Rs. 43,796/- will yield interest @9% P.A. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 08-11-2011 till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 27-12-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member | |
