Delhi

East Delhi

CC/233/2013

RAJANI BABURANJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLAZEFLESH COURIOUR - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  233/13

 

Ms. Rajani Baburajan

R/o 3F, Navkala Apartment

Plot No. 14, I.P. Extension

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Blazeflash Couriers Limited

Blazeflash House

3^rd Floor, 2E/8, Jhandewalan Extension

New Delhi – 101 055

 

2. Deepak Kumar

Agent, Blazeflash Couriers

E-55, West Vinod Nagar

Behind Swati Apartment

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                             ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 04.04.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 23.08.2017

Judgment Passed on: 24.08.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Ms. Rajani Baburajan against Blazeflash Couriers Limited (OP-1) and Shri Deepak Kumar, agent of Blazeflash Couriers (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant got the courier service from OP vide transaction number 214610890 on 10.01.2013 in Delhi to deliver a packet containing a cheque to her ailing parents at Kerala at Elavathur House, P.O. Eyyal, Via Kechery, Thrissur Distt., Kerala-680501.  The packet was accepted after due verification of the pin code by Shri Deepak Kumar, agent of Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. (OP-2), who assured her that the packet will be delivered within 3 working days.  The cost of sending the courier was Rs. 50/-. 

          It was stated that the packet was not delivered within the committed time.  The complainant procured the number of the agent in Cochin and was informed that the courier had been forwarded to Thrissur on 14.01.2013.  Company’s agent at Thrissur,                    Mr. Nandakumar informed the complainant that the packet could not be delivered as the delivery was to be made outside their service area and dismissed the call stating that she could approach the agent who collected from her.

          The complainant made a complaint vide complaint no. 30072 for Awb no. 214610890 on 18.01.2013.  On 25.01.2013, she received a reply which stated that the consignment was “on hold” in Cochin due to “no service area”.  She asked the agent in Cochin to send the packet back to her without any damage to the content as it contained a cheque that has confidential information about her bank account. 

          It was further stated that as per record on the company website on 31.01.2013, the courier has returned from Cochin but has not been delivered to her till date. 

          She gave a legal notice to the company on 18.02.2013, which was not replied to.  Hence she has prayed for refund of Rs. 50/-, cost of courier service alongwith interest; get the package containing the cheque back without any damage to the pack and the content and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience.

3. In the WS, filed on behalf of OP, they have taken various pleas such as the complainant had not disclosed the contents of the package or declared the value of the same.  The consignment receipt, placed on record by the complainant itself, contains in writing the terms and conditions as:

“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.  In case the value is not declared and/or insurance charges are not paid by cash in advance at the time of booking.  Further Blazeflash shall also not be responsible for any consequential losses, damages or compensation.  No claim or complaint shall be entertained after one month from the date of the consignment note, as we do not keep records pertaining to proof of delivery after expiry of the said period.”    

          It was also stated that the complainant has not given any notice to them.  She has not given any particular of the loss and has not filed supporting documents alongwith complaint.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       The complainant in her rejoinder to the Written Statement has controverted the pleas made in their written statement and have reasserted her pleas made in the complaint.

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit and has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.    

          In defence, Blazeflash Couriers Limited have examined        Shri Arvind Varshney, who has deposed on affidavit. 
He has also narrated the facts/contents of their reply and have got exhibited Board Resolution (Ex.OPW1/A).

5.       We have heard the counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record as none has put the appearance on behalf of OPs.  Though, counsel for OP did not appear to argue, but they have taken the plea in their WS as well as evidence that the complainant did not disclose the nature of consignment nor she has declared the value of the same. 

          It has further been stated that the consignment note also contain the terms and conditions in respect of their restricted liability to Rs. 100/- for domestic consignment and Rs. 1,000/- for international consignment.  It has further been stated that the complainant have not indicated the loss suffered by her. 

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that no doubt that on the receipt, there are terms with regard to limited liability, but the fact that consignment has not been returned to the complainant, if not delivered, she was entitled for the amount of booking as well as return of consignment and compensation for deficiency.

          From the testimony of the complainant as well as of               Mr. Arvind Varshney of OP, it is admitted fact that the complainant got the consignment booked, though, she did not disclose the contents of the consignment.  Admittedly, the consignment have not been delivered to the consignee nor it has been returned to the complainant.  The fact that Shri Deepak Kumar, agent of OP have booked the consignment without knowing in respect of having their delivery office for which the consignment was to be delivered, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of agent, Shri Deepak Kumar, who has acted on behalf of Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. (OP-1).

          Since, the consignment have not been delivered nor returned to the complainant, certainly, she has suffered mental pain and agony for which she has to be compensated.  No doubt, as per terms and conditions of the consignment note, the liability remains limited, but the fact that consignment has not been returned to the complainant, she is awarded the booking amount of Rs. 50/-, as claimed by her, alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,000/-.  The package, which was booked by the complainant be also returned, if available with OP.  If the same is not returned, OP have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in lieu of that.  Liability is fastened on Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. (OP-1) as   Shri Deepak Kumar is acted on behalf of Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. (OP-1).    

          This order be complied within a period of 30 days, if not complied, the awarded amount of Rs. 2,050/- will carry 6% interest from the date of order.    

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President