Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/856/2022

PRANAV SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLUE DART EXPRESS LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/856/2022
Date of Institution	:	06/10/2022
Date of Decision	:	06/12/2023

 

Pranav Sharma, resident of House No.55, backside E.N.T. Hospital, Sehaj Enclave, Majithia Road, Amritsar-I, Amritsar, Punjab-143001.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Blue Dart Express Limited, Blue Dart Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400099.
2. Blue Dart Express Limited, SCO 165-166, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160018.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Suvir Tandon, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Pranav Sharma, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 16.4.2022, complainant had shipped a consignment through the courier service of the OPs by disclosing that a laptop (hereinafter referred to as “subject laptop”) valuing ₹40,000/- was being shipped and he had paid an amount of ₹916/- towards the shipment charges. OPs had given shippers copy (receipt) containing all details regarding the consignment with proforma invoice and copies of same are Ex. C-2 & C-3. At the time of shipment by the OPs, it was assured to the complainant that the parcel will be handed over to the consignee by 18.4.2022.  However, the said consignment was delivered to the consignee on 27.4.2022.  On the opening of the shipment by the consignee, the subject laptop was found damaged regarding which the consignee had also sent the photographs (Ex.C-4) to the complainant. The complainant immediately informed the OPs about receiving faulty delivery of subject consignment through email dated 29.4.2022 (Ex.C-6).  Due to the damage caused to the subject laptop during its transit, the consignee had imposed a fine of ₹20,000/- upon the complainant. The consignee had also sent a service quotation dated 5.5.2022 for ₹26,415/- (Ex.C-5) for repair of the subject laptop.  Vide email dated 6.5.2022, complainant had informed the OPs about the said quotation sent by the consignee. Thereafter, vide email dated 13.5.2022, complainant again informed the OPs that the package containing the laptop was packed in the presence of representatives of OPs and the OPs have also admitted that the same has been damaged during transit. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts, limitation and also that the complainant is not a consumer since he has failed to prove nexus between the damage claimed in the present consumer complaint and the damage suffered by him.  However, it is admitted that the subject laptop was handed over by the complainant with the OPs for its shipment and the same was sent by the OPs on the given address of consignee through courier and the service quotation (Ex.C-5) was also sent by NTT Data Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd.  It is alleged that, in fact, the said NTT data has clearly mentioned that the subject laptop had already been damaged and the complainant in a very pre planned manner has filed the present consumer complaint against the answering OPs. It is further alleged that the present consumer complaint is stage managed only to get a false claim from the OPs since there is not even a single communication from NTT Data Information regarding the alleged damage of the laptop in transit. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. The rejoinder filed by the complainant was not taken on record as the same was filed after opportunity to file the same was closed vide order dated 22.3.2023.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that on 16.4.2022, complainant had shipped a consignment by using the courier service of the OPs for shipment of one laptop valuing ₹40,000/- on payment of ₹916/- towards shipment charges and when the same was received by the consignee in damaged condition, as is also evident from photographs (Ex.C-4) and immediately complainant had approached the OPs through email (Ex.C-6) intimating about the damage/loss caused to the laptop and asking for the amount which the consignee had asked the complainant to pay, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in not acceding to the request of the complainant to pay the amount of damages and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs are justified in rejecting the prayer of the complainant on the ground that the damage was not caused to the subject laptop during transit of the same, rather the same had already been damaged and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that, in order to determine the real controversy between the parties, the documentary evidence, adduced by both the parties, to prove their respective claims, is required to be scanned carefully.
   3. Perusal of Ex.C-2 clearly indicates that the subject laptop with declared value of ₹40,000/- was handed over by the complainant to the OPs for shipment from Chandigarh to the consignee namely “NTT Data Information Processing Services P L”. As per the case of the complainant, OPs were informed about the shipment of subject laptop in good condition through the said consignment, which fact has been denied by the OPs as it is their defence that, in fact, the laptop has already been damaged and no damage was caused to it during transit.  However, when it has come on record that the OPs were disclosed about the subject laptop valuing ₹40,000/-, being shipped by the OPs to the consignee, it was the duty of the OPs to first check the product before sending the same to the addressee/consignee. If the OPs did not check the subject laptop before its shipment to the consignee, now it does not lie in their mouth to say that the complainant had handed over the same in damaged condition, rather it is safe to hold that the same was damaged during transit of the same by the OPs, as is also evident from the photographs (Ex.C-4), and the subject laptop was received by the consignee in damaged condition.  As further it has come on record that the OPs have received an amount of ₹916/- from the complainant as shipment charges and the subject laptop has not been delivered by the OPs to the consignee in safe condition, the said act certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
   4. Now coming to the quantum of relief to be awarded to the complainant, he has proved email (Ex.C-Y) through which the consignee had deducted ₹22,385/- from his account, as he was earlier employee of the consignee company, towards the damage to the subject laptop. Thus, when it has come on record that the complainant has paid ₹22,385/- as repair/ damage charges of the subject laptop to his previous employer i.e. the consignee company, the OPs are certainly liable to pay the same to the complainant. Though the OPs have come with the defence that the liability of the OP company is limited to ₹5,000/- or cost of reconstruction, whichever is lower, but, since the complainant is not signatory to the said term as contained in Ex.C-2, as the column containing the shipper’s signature is blank, the same is not binding upon the complainant. Hence, the OPs are liable to pay the aforesaid amount of ₹22,385/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment caused to him.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹22,385/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 6.5.2022, when the employer of complainant asked to deduct aforesaid amount from the account of complainant vide Ex.CY, onwards.
2. to pay ₹2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 06/12/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member