BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL, 5TH FLOOR,
ISBT, KASHMERE GATE: DELHI-110006
No. DF(Central)/2015/ Dated:
Complaint Case No.96 of 2012
SH.Hakim Gulam Mehdi
S/o Shri Mashiyat Ali
R/o House No. 18, First Floor
Abul Fazal Enclave Okhla,
Jamia Nagar
NEW DELHI – 110 025. Complainant
Versus
- Blazeflash Couriers Ltd.
Office At : Okhla, Jamia Nagar
New Delhi – 110 025
- Blazeflash Couriers Ltd.
Corporate Office : Blazeflash House,
-
New Delhi – 110 055 Opposite Parties
ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, President
On 14th December, 2011 the complainant had booked a parcel containing Govt. documents with the OP vide receipt No. 205152977 dated 14.12.2011 for delivery to Dr. B Subramaniam. Since the consignment did not reach its destination, the complainant took up the matter with the Ops but to no result. The complainant had therefore approach this Forum for redressal of this grievance. The Ops have contested the complainant and have filed the reply wherein they have claimed that the complainant is liable to be dismissed and its mis-conceived and merit less.
Para 3 & 4 of the reply is relevant and is being reproduced as under:-
3.That all the contents of paras 1 to 15 of the complaint are wrong, incorrect, false and misconceived, except that one packet was received by M/s Blazeflash Couriers Ltd against consignment Note No. 205152977 dated 14.12.2011, which in the normal course ought to have been delivered to the addressee/consignee, unless mis-routed for want of correct and complete address and/or lost in transit. At the time of booking, the contents and value of the packet were not declared by the complainant, otherwise the same would have been mentioned in the consignment note in the column meant for it. In any case, neither of the respondents has had misappropriated the packet, nor had made any wrongful personal gain.
4.Without prejudice to the above, it submitted that the claim against M/s Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. Is hit by the Doctrine of Limited liability. even if it is assumed that the booked packet was not delivered, then the same ought to have been lost in transit, due to wrong mentioning of name or address of the consignee by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had agreed to restrict his claim of damages to Rs.100/- only in event of non-delivery of the packet, due to any loss of packet in transit, therefore, the complainant cannot claim more amount that that what was agreed upon. Though not admitted, even if it is assumed that the booked packet has not been delivered to the addressee, and there is an element of deficiency of service, the liability of M/s Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. Is limited to Rs.100/-. It is submitted that the impugned consignment Note constitutes an contract, and the complainant is bound with its terms and conditions. The relevant terms of the booking is 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/limited to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment and Rs.1,000/- for each international consignment. Further Blazeflash shall also not be responsible for any consequential losses or damages or compensation. No claim or complaint shall be entertained after one month from the date of consignment note, as we do not keep record pertaining to proof of delivery, after expiry of the said period. The above condition are in addition to the terms and conditions mentioned in the reverse, which have been read over to me/us and have been understood and accepted to me/us. The consignor himself shall collect the P.O.D. from us within one week of booking”.
We have heard arguments advanced in the Bar and have perused the record. On behalf of the OP an affidavit has been filed by Sh. Arvind Varshney its General Manager. We have gone through the affidavit there is no assertion in the same that the consignment was actual delivered to the consignee. No delivery note has been placed on record which makes us believe that the OP had failed to deliver the consignment after it was booked by the complainant. This despite the fact that the complainant had immediately inform the Ops about the non delivery of the consignment. We therefore, hold that the Ops were guilty of deficiency in service. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has forcely contended that the liability of the OP is limited to a sum of Rs.100/- as is clear of his consignment note. We however, do not agree that the said contention as the consignment note does not appear the signature of the consignor. The OP therefore can not take benefit of the aforesaid clause in the consignment note. We therefore, direct the Ops directly and severally as under:-
1. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for the loss mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Only ) towards cost of litigation.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
(S N SHUKLA) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
