BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.305 of 2015

Date of Instt. 20.07.2015

Date of Decision :08.10.2015

Dr.Sonia Gera C/o Muskan Speech and Hearing Aid Centre, 178, Gujral Nagar, Near Mann Scanning Centre, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Branch Manager, First Flight Couriers Ltd, Near Reru Village, Pathankot Bye Pas, Jalandhar-144012.

2. First Flight Couriers Ltd, R.H.O.1-2-3-4, 2nd Floor, Jandu Tower, Miller Ganj, GT Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Ashok Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Suresh Jamwal, Authorized Representative of OPs.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a doctor by profession and she is running a hearing aid centre in the name of Muskan Speech and Hearing Aid Centre, 178, Gujral Nagar, Near Mann Scanning Centre, Jalandhar. The complainant has got booked a courier with the opposite parties on 20.7.2013 of the parcel containing hearing aids. The said courier was to be delivered at Siemens Hearing Instrument Pvt Ltd at Bangalore for repair. At the time of booking, the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the parcel will be delivered at the destination within three days in a safe condition. The complainant has paid a requisite fee of Rs.120/- to the opposite parties vide receipt No.M10229268 dated 20.7.2013. The said parcel did not reach at its destination and when the complainant enquired about the non reaching of the parcel at the destination, then the opposite parties told the complainant that the said courier has been lost on their end and they are ready to compensate the complainant. The complainant was informed through email dated 17.8.2013 by one Jaspreet Kaur, Assistant Manager of the opposite parties that the parcel may be treated as lost. The complainant was told by the opposite parties that she should submit the claim form with Sh.Suresh at Jalandhar on 8.8.2013 and accordingly the complainant deposited the required documents with the opposite party No.1. But after many conversations and repeated reminders the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant. After long persuasion the opposite parties informed the complainant that her claim has been settled and they will send her a cheque of Rs.95,000/- shortly. But no such amount was sent by the opposite parties to the complainant and when the complainant again asked the opposite parties about the status of her claim then the complainant got an email dated 14.10.2013 from the opposite parties by which she was informed by one Jaspreet Kaur, Assistant Manager of the opposite parties that "the cheque was received but the amount was wrong i.e Rs.9500/- and due to this reason returned". The opposite parties assured the complainant that they will soon give her claim amount of Rs.95,000/-. The above said hearing aids had been sent to the consignee i.e Siemens Hearing Instrument Pvt Ltd at Bangalore for repair. The said hearing aids belonged to differed patients and one of them was an engineering student. The said patients kept on enquiring about their aids times and again and the complainant was left with no other alternative except to compensate the said patients from her own pocket. The opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainant till date even after the repeated reminders given to the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay her Rs.95,000/- i.e value of the consignment alongwith interest. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the opposite parties but they did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.8.2015. However, subsequently, Sh.Suresh Jamwal, Authorized Representative of the opposite parties appeared and was allowed to join further proceedings.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4and closed evidence.

4 We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite parties.

5. In their written arguments, the booking of consignment is in a way admitted by the opposite parties but they have stated that it was closed packet and it was not disclosed that same was having hearing aid and the value of the consignment has not been disclosed by the complainant. Further according to the written arguments, despite their best efforts and proper care, the said consignment got lost and they informed the complainant regarding the same. Further according to the opposite parties, as per clause 18 of the terms and conditions, printed behind the booking slip, the complainant had agreed that consignor to declare the value of the consignment and the detailed description of the material in the consignment and in the present case no such value of the goods had been declared. Further according to the opposite parties, as per clause 23 of the terms and conditions, their liability is limited to Rs.100/- only and the complainant is entitled to Rs.100/- and nothing beyond that. So admittedly, the consignment was lost by the opposite parties and was not delivered to the consignee. The consignment was booked vide courier receipt Ex.C1. Ex.C2 is copy of document vide which the value of the consignment at Rs.95000/- was declared on 20.7.2013 i.e at the time of booking of the consignment. This document bears the stamp of the opposite party courier company. So far as, liability of the opposite parties is concerned, the condition printed on the courier receipt are of no consequence. Non delivery of consignment sent by the complainant to the consignee and loss of the same in transit constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. In DHL Worldwide Express & another Vs. AGG Exports & another 2009(2) CLT 7, our own Hon'ble State Commission has held that the terms and conditions got printed by the transporter unilaterally would not absolve the transporter from their liability when they commit deficiency in service. So, the condition printed on the courier receipt regarding liability to the extent Rs.100/- only is not relevant and opposite party can not be escape its liability regarding non delivery of the consignment and deficiency in service on its part. As per document Ex.C2 the value of the consignment was declared at Rs.95000/-.

6. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.95,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above awarded amount after the expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

08.10.2015 Member President