Delhi

East Delhi

CC/586/2013

G.S BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

COURIERS NETWORK - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC NO.586/13

IN THE MATTER OF:
 

G.S. BHATIA

S/O SH. GURCHARAN SINGH BHATIA

R/O B-125, JHILMIL INDUSTRIAL AREA,

DELHI-110095

 

 

Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. PROFESSIONAL COURIERS NETWORK LTD.

THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON,

REGIONAL OFFICE

A-65, NARAINA INDURSTRIAL AREA,

PHASE-1 OPP, PVR CINEMA,

NEW DELHI 110028

 

2. MR. VIMIL, OWNER OF VITIA BANQUET

63-A, NAJAFGARH ROAD,

OPP, KIRTI NAGAR METRO STATION,

NEW DELHI-110015

 

 

Opposite Parties

 

 

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 24/07/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 28/01/2016

 

ORDER

 

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant sent one gift parcel carrying two costly Pashmeena Shawls worth more than Rs.21,000/- from Karam Nagar, Srinagar as a gift for the marriage of daughter to be held on 25/11/2012 at the venue of Respondent No.2 vide courier shipper No. SXR 502680917. It was to be delivered on 25/11/2012 at the marriage venue that is Vatika Banquet to the Complainant when enquired it was told that it has been delivered to Smt. Kaur Supervisor of Respondent No.2 on 25/11/2012. When Complainant enquired regarding the gift, they admitted to have received a gift and cut a sorry figure for not handing over to the complainant. The Respondent No.1 was not authorized to deliver the parcel to any other person. The Respondent No.2 misappropriated with the parcel of the Complainant as such both the Respondents are vicariously liable. The Complainant has prayed for the return of Shawls or in alternative cost of Shawls of Rs.21,000/- with 18% interest and Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

            Respondent No.1 filed their reply taking the pleas that it was booked by M/s Modern Sanilotia at Karam Nagar Sri Nagar, Sh. G.S. Bhatia is not a Consumer. This is also admitted that it was to be delivered at Marriage venue at Vitika Banquet and it was delivered on 24/11/2012 as such there is no deficiency on their part. They have also raised the question of Jurisdiction, it is also alleged that the Complainant has filed a false and fabricated documents. The consignee of the consignment did not disclosed the value of the consignment to be Rs.21,000/- as alleged. In fact the consigner disclosed the value to be Rs.400/-, as per booking terms and conditions liability of the Respondent No.1 is limited to Rs.100/-. As per the consignment note the consignment was noted to be M/s Chirag Sanitory Products. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Complainant filed the Rejoinder denying the allegation of the Respondent and both the parties have filed their respective affidavit in support of their case.

Heard and perused the record.

            This is admitted fact that the consignment of the two shawls were booked from Shri Nagar which was to be delivered at Vitika Banquet at Delhi which was accordingly delivered on 24/11/2012. The Respondent have raised the question regarding the maintainability of this complaint, firstly that Complainant is not a consumer, secondly on the ground of Jurisdiction. In so far as the question of being consumer is concerned it has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that Complainant Gurcharan Singh Bhatia is the proprietor of the M/s Chirag Senatory and residing B-12/5 Jhilmil Industrial Area Delhi-95. The SXR receipt shows the same address B-12/5 Jhilmil Indurstrial Area Delhi. Notices which were served upon the Respondent through speed post clearly states this fact that Sh. G.S.Bhatia is the proprietor of Chirag Sanitory Products. Reply by Respondent No.2 has also admitted this fact that Sh. G.S. Bhatia is a proprietor of Chirag Sanitory Products. They have not denied that the venue was not booked by Sh. G.S. Bhatia for 25/11/2012 for the Marriage of his daughter. The Marriage Card filed by the Complainant confirms that the Marriage was solemnized at Vatika Banquet. The Respondent No.1 in their written statement has admitted this fact that they have delivered the parcel to the Respondent No.2 on 24/11/2012 itself sufficient to prove this fact that Shawls which were booked from Sri Nagar was to be delivered to the Complainant Vitika Banquet at Delhi. This proves that the Complainant was the beneficiary of this transaction as such he shall be deemed to be a consumer to the Respondent. In these circumstances as per section 2 (d) of the CPA the Complainant is competent to maintain the present complaint. In so far as the question of Jurisdiction is concerned the same has no force as the Shawls were to be delivered at Delhi and the Respondent instead of delivering the consignment to the consignee delivered the consignment to the Manager of the Vitika Banquet, thus, giving the cause of action to the Complainant to initiate the proceedings of deficiency of service as against the Respondents.

            As per the receipt of booking it is apparent that this parcel was in the name of Chirag Sanitory Products with specific direction that it should be delivered at Marriage Venue. The Respondent has taken the plea that the receipt which has been filed by the Complainant is manipulated. The receipt has been filed from the side of the Respondent which is supposed to be the carbon copy of the receipt issued on comparison of the two receipts the receipt filed by the Respondent is all together different from the one filed by the complainant. The declared value pleaded in the written statement is Rs.400/- while this receipt shows it was Rs.2,000/-, there is no mention of the amount charged. When on receipt filed by the ComplainantRs.70/-is written. There is a note that this parcel was to be delivered on 25/11/2012 which is in consonance of the plea taken in the written statement that there is specific note in this receipt that it is to be delivered at Vitika Banquet Najaf Garh Road Delhi. This supports the case of the Complainant that the parcel was booked with the specific direction to be delivered to the Complainant on 25/11/2012, it was delivered on 24/11/2012 to the Respondent No.2 against the direction in the booking. The Marriage was on 25/11/2012, there was no question for Mr. Bhatia being presents at venue on 24/11/2012 as such the Respondent No.1 has violated the terms of the booking by handover the consignment to the Respondent No.2 on 24/11/2012. This is a clear case of deficiency in service. In so far as the value of the Shawls are concerned in the receipt filed by the Complainant along with the complaint and affidavit it was Rs.21,000/-. The Complainant has also filed the additional affidavit along with the original receipt issued by the Shawl factory showing the value to be Rs.21,500/-. The Respondent No.1 have taken the plea that their liability is restricted to Rs.100/-, as per the terms and condition printed over leaf. The burden lies upon the Respondent to prove that the Complainant is a signatory to these terms and conditions. There is no signature of the Complainant on the receipt or of the person who has booked this consignment from Sri Nagar.

            In these circumstances this condition shall not be applicable upon the Complainant and is not binding on him. The Respondent No.2 has not filed any reply in these proceedings admittedly this consignment was delivered to the Respondent No.2 by the Respondent No.1. The plea of Respondent No.1 that he has discharged his is obligation by delivering the consignment on 24/11/2012 cannot be accepted. Taken into consideration that he has violated the direction of the consignment by delivering to the Respondent No.2, it was the duty of Respondent No.1 to have collected the consignment from the Respondent No.2 and should have delivered it to the complainant, they have also not done this. This is another deficiency on the part of the Respondent No.1. The value of the consignment was Rs.21,000/-. The Complainant has not only suffered the loss of consignment but has also suffered the emotional attachment by not giving these shawls to his daughter at the time of her marriage.

Taking all the facts into consideration, we allow this complaint against the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay to the Complainant the cost of the two shawls as claimed i.e. Rs.21,000/- with 9% interest there on from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid. We further award the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental pain, harassment, agony and inconvenience cause. This shall also include the cost of litigation. The Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action/remedy as against the Respondent No.2.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT