DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.437 of 04-10-2013

Decided on 10-02-2014

Neeraj Kumar aged about 36 years, Sole Proprietor of M/s Delhi Radio Corporation, Shop No.29, The Mall, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Blazeflash Courier Limited, Corporate Office: Blazeflash House, IIIrd floor, 2E/8, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-110055, through its Managing Director.

2.Blazeflash Courier Limited, Near Kanwal Cinema, Railway Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Pardeep Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Vikas Singla, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. 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 an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he booked one consignment with the opposite party No.2 containing 36 Pen-drives etc. worth Rs.13,000/- approximately vide receipt No.290872533 dated 27.5.2013 on the payment of the requisite fee, which was to be delivered to M/s Balaji Solution, Ludhiana. The opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the abovesaid consignment would be delivered to the consignee within the period of 2 days from the date of its booking. The period of more than 3 months has already lapsed, but till date, the opposite parties have not delivered the abovesaid consignment to the consignee. The complainant repeatedly approached the office of the opposite party No.2 and enquired about the abovesaid consignment, but they postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant also enquired about the abovesaid consignment from the consignee, he told the complainant that he has not received the same. The consignee has also enquired about the abovesaid consignment from the office of the opposite party No.1 at Ludhiana, but to no effect. The abovesaid parcel/consignment has not been delivered by the opposite parties either to the consignee or it has been returned to the complainant till date. The complainant contacted the opposite parties on their contact Nos.01615001493, 01615001494 and 99889-67588 at Ludhiana, but they have failed to give him any satisfactory reply. The complainant has also got issued a legal notice dated 11.6.2013 to the opposite parties, but they have not given any reply to the said legal notice. The complainant is running the business under the name & style of M/s Delhi Radio Corporation, Shop No.29, The Mall, Bathinda and is its Sole Proprietor and it is the only source of the complainant to earn the livelihood for himself and his family. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to make the payment of the abovesaid consignment to the tune of Rs.13,000/- alongwith cost and compensation.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they booked one consignment vide consignment note No290872533 dated 27.5.2013, which in the normal course was delivered to the addressee. The opposite parties denied that the impugned consignment contained 36 Pen-drives of alleged value. The booked consignment was not accompanied with any document to suggest its contents and value. The complainant should have disclosed/declared the contents and value of the booked consignment to the opposite parties at the time of its booking so that the same could have been entered in the consignment note. As per the Track Domestic Shipment the booked parcel had reached at Ludhiana on dated 28.5.2013, thus there is no malafide intention of the opposite parties not to deliver the same to the consignee. It appears that since the buyer of the goods i.e. consignee has not paid for the goods received, therefore, the present complaint has been filed to get his dues received from the purchaser. At the time of booking the contents and value of the consignment have not been disclosed or mentioned in the consignment note, as such the liability of the opposite parties, in the event of non-delivery due to the transit loss, is limited to the extent of Rs.100/-. The impugned consignment note constitutes a contract between the complainant and the opposite parties to provide the courier services, therefore the complainant is bound with the terms and conditions of the booking consignment. The liability of the opposite parties for the loss in transit has specifically mentioned in the impugned consignment note. The original consignment note is in the possession of the complainant, so the complainant was aware of the terms of the booking and at no stage he raised any objection against the said terms. To support their version the opposite parties have relied upon various authorities.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The undisputed facts of the parties are that the complainant has booked one consignment with the opposite party No.2 vide receipt No.290872533 dated 27.5.2013 on the payment of the requisite fee which was to be delivered to M/s Balaji Solution, Ludhiana.

6. The disputed facts of the parties are that the complainant submitted that the abovesaid parcel/consignment was containing 36 Pen-drives etc. worth Rs.13,000/- approximately which was to be delivered to M/s Balaji Solution, Ludhiana, but till date the same has not been delivered to the consignee nor returned to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 assured the complainant to deliver the abovesaid consignment to the consignee within the period of 2 days from the date of its booking. The complainant contacted the opposite parties on their contact Nos.01615001493, 01615001494 and 99889-67588 at Ludhiana, but they have failed to give him any satisfactory reply and have also failed to give any reply to the legal notice dated 11.6.2013.

7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite parties is that as per the Track Domestic Shipment the booked parcel had reached at Ludhiana on dated 28.5.2013, thus there is no malafide intention of the opposite parties not to deliver the same to the consignee. It appears that as the buyer of the good i.e. consignee has not paid for the goods received, therefore, the present complaint has been filed to get his dues received from the purchaser. As at the time of booking the contents and value of the consignment have not been disclosed and/or not mentioned in the consignment note, as such the liability of the opposite parties, in the event of non-delivery due to the transit loss, is limited to the extent of Rs.100/- only.

8. A perusal of documents placed on file shows the complainant has booked one consignment vide consignment note No.290872533 dated 27.5.2013 to be delivered at Ludhiana, but the same has neither reached to the consignee nor delivered back to the complainant. The complainant has submitted that the abovesaid parcel/consignment contained 36 Pen-drives worth Rs.13,000/-, but as per the version of the opposite parties the complainant has not disclosed the contents and value of the abovesaid consignment, hence the liability of the opposite parties is limited to the extent of Rs.100/- only. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C6, to show the contents of the abovesaid consignment, prepared in the name of M/s Balaji Solutions vide Tin No.03311056358 by Delhi Radio Corporation, 29, The Mall, Bathinda, but in this document the value of the abovesaid consignment has not been mentioned. The complainant has also placed on file e-mail, Ex.C5, showing the value of the abovesaid consignment, but again this document does not shows that 36 Pen-drives worth Rs.13,000/- approximately was packed in the parcel/consignment in question that has been booked vide consignment note No290872533 dated 27.5.2013. The opposite parties have not placed on file any evidence except Ex.OP1/1. In their written statement the opposite parties have specifically submitted that as per the Track Domestic Shipment the booked parcel had reached at Ludhiana on dated 28.5.2013, whereas no document showing Track Domestic Shipment has been placed on file by the opposite parties to prove their this version.

9. As discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties have failed to deliver the abovesaid consignment to the consignee/addressee and have failed to returned the same to the complainant. Till date the opposite parties have failed to tell that whether the abovesaid consignment has been lying in their office or has lost in transit, thus the opposite parties have failed to prove that the abovesaid consignment has reached at Ludhiana or it has ever been delivered to the consignee or returned back to the complainant. At the same time the complainant has failed to prove that the abovesaid parcel/consignment was containing 36 Pen-drives worth Rs.13,000/- as no weight has been mentioned in Ex.C6 i.e. receipt of the Blazeflash Courier, thus the complainant is not entitled for the payment of Rs.13,000/-. No doubt the consignment/parcel of the complainant has not reached to its destination or returned to the complainant, hence he is entitled for some compensation. The opposite parties have submitted that their liability is confined only to Rs.100/-. The terms and conditions are mentioned at the back of receipt are not binding on the complainant as the same has not been signed by either of the parties. In this regard the the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled Blazeflash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs V. Manish Jain, I (2010) CPJ 542, wherein, it has been held:-

“....Contention, value of parcels not mentioned – Liability in case of damage limited to only Rs.100 – Contention rejected – Terms and conditions printed on the receipt not binding unless same signed by consumer – Damage of Rs.9,000/- - suffered – Deficiency in services proved – Order upheld – No interference required.”

Further the reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in case titled Pavit Garg Vs Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. & Ors., IV (2009) CPJ 271, wherein it has been held:-

“....Contention, as per terms mentioned on envelope liability of postal authorities limited to Rs.100 only – Contention rejected – Contents of courier receipt in very fine print, practically illegible – No signatures put by appellant on the receipt giving consent to the terms of respondents – Admittedly letter delivered after 7 days – Delay not explained by respondents – Deficiency in services proved – Respondents directed to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation directed alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. - Order modified – Relief entitled.”

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties.

11. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel of the opposite parties, have distinguishable facts and circumstances.

12. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

10-02-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member