Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.         Amanpreet Singh Sandhu, complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 11,12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that son of the complainant namely Sarvnoor Singh Sandhu is studying in Noida and is living in a hostel. He came back home in the month of January 2016 for a few days and got himself checked up from doctor in Amritsar  and went back to Noida on 18.1.2016 . He could not get the medicines in Nodia as prescribed by the doctor. The complainant purchased the medicines from M/s. Kartar Medicos, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar on 19.1.2016 vide bill No. 5631 dated 19.1.2016 for sending the same to his son at Noida. The complainant sent the medicine through courier service of opposite party No.1 vide consignment No. Z79438366 dated 21.1.2016 for urgent and early delivery. The complainant also sent a flask bottle worth Rs. 1000/- through the same courier. The flask bottle was purchased by the complainant from Wallmart (Best Price) Amritsar alongwith other articles and the said bill has been got misplaced by the complainant. Fact of sending flask bottle through the same consignment is mentioned by the complainant in the reminder dated 29.1.2016  moved to opposite party No.1. The complainant  paid Rs. 150/- for the said consignment  and opposite party No.1 assured that the consignment must be delivered to the addressee on 23.1.2016. The complainant had written on the parcel that the parcel contains medicines and a flask bottle as the concerned manager/clerk present in the office of opposite party No.1 told the complainant to write the description of articles on the parcel. But the concerned manager neither wrote the descriptions of articles on the receipt nor asked the complainant to get his articles insured.   The consignment  was not delivered at the address of the addressee. The complainant enquired from opposite party No.1 about the non delivery of abovesaid consignment, who felt sorry and assured that the said consignment must be delivered to the addressee in safe mode within a day. But all the assurances given by opposite party No.1 are fake and false. The complainant repeatedly visited the opposite party No.1 but to no avail. The complainant moved a written complaint/reminder  on 29.1.2016 to opposite party No.1  which was duly received by opposite party No.1 on the same date. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 on different dates but all in vain. The courier was not delivered to the addressee which is a result of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite parties be directed to deliver or return the medicines booked  vide consignment in the office of opposite party No.1 ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.

2.       Initially none appeared on behalf of opposite parties, as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. But lateon Sh.Yash Pal Seth,Adv. appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and he was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage.

3.       In his bid to prove the case, Mrs. Parkashdeep Kaur,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Amanpreet Singh Sandhu Ex.C-1, retail sale cash memo dated 19.1.2016, copy of courier receipt dated 21.1.2016 Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 29.1.2016 Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Yash Pal Seth,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Kanwaljit Singh, Manager Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of complaint No.113/16 earlier filed before the  Forum Ex.OP1,2/2, certified copy of affidavit of Sh.Amanpreet Singh Sandhu Ex.OP1,2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 & 2.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties  and have carefully gone through the record on the file .

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and has vehemently contended that son of the complainant namely Sarvnoor Singh Sandhu , who is studying in Noida and is living in a hostel came back home in the month of January 2016 for a few days and got himself checked up from doctor in Amritsar  and went back to Noida on 18.1.2016 . However, the son of the complainant could not get the medicines in Nodia as prescribed by the doctor. As such the complainant purchased the medicines from M/s. Kartar Medicos, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar on 19.1.2016 vide bill No. 5631 dated 19.1.2016  to the tune of  Rs. 3797/- for sending the same to his son at Noida.   The complainant sent the medicine through courier service of opposite party No.1 vide consignment No. Z79438366 dated 21.1.2016 for urgent and early delivery. The complainant also sent a flask bottle worth Rs. 1000/- through the same courier. The complainant  paid Rs. 150/- for the said consignment  and opposite party No.1 assured that the consignment must be delivered to the addressee on 23.1.2016.  But however, consignment  was not delivered to  the addressee. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

7.       Whereas  as per affidavit of Kanwaljit Singh, Manager filed by the opposite party, it was submitted that the parcel/consignment was not insured by the consignor as per the policy of the company. As such the liability of the company is restricted to Rs. 100/- only.  It has been submitted that clause 17 of the terms and conditions clearly lays down that “all claims in respect of loss or damage of consignment shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of tendering a shipment to DTDC. Any claim/request received after this period shall not be entertained. As the complainant has not made the claim within time, as such the claim shall not be entertained. It has further been submitted that in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant vide CC No. 113/16, it was not averred that the consignment consists medicine and flask bottle, thus the story made in the present complaint that the Manager/clerk of the opposite parties did not write the description of the articles on the parcel nor he asked him to get the articles insured seems to be false.

8.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant booked consignment i.e. a parcel containing medicines of the value of Rs. 3797/- as per bill exbt.C-2 for delivery to the consignee i.e. Sh. Sarvnoor Singh at Noida through courier i.e. opposite parties vide receipt dated 21.1.2016 exbt.C-3. Opposite parties were bound to deliver the consignment to the consignee at Noida as early as possible. But the opposite parties failed to deliver the consignment to the consignee at Noida. The plea of the opposite party is that  as the parcel was not insured, as such the liability of the company is limited to  Rs. 100/- only.  But opposite party could not provide any terms and conditions to prove that they are liable to pay only Rs. 100/- to the complainant as alleged by the opposite party. The other plea of the opposite party is that clause 17 of the terms and conditions clearly lays down that “all claims in respect of loss or damage of consignment shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of tendering a shipment to DTDC. Any claim/request received after this period shall not be entertained. As the complainant has not made the claim within time, as such the claim shall not be entertained. But to prove this averment, opposite party has failed to prove that they ever disclosed  the terms and conditions of the consignment to the complainant nor the opposite party has   provided those terms and conditions to the complainant nor the same have been placed on the court file while tendering their evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh & Others 2014(2) CLT 305 that onus to prove that the terms and conditions were supplied to the insured is on the Insurance company. But in this case the opposite party could not produce any evidence to prove that the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy in question were supplied to the complainant. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd 2000(1) CPC 596 that where the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to the insured, the same are not binding on the insured. The complainant went on European tour from 8.6.2014 to 9.7.2014 during the period of policy he fell ill and was hospitalized during validity of the insurance policy from 24.5.2014 to 22.7.2014. So the opposite party was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on this ground that he did not travel on tour within first 14 days from the date of commencement of the policy.

9.       However, regarding quantum of compensation as the complainant has not produced on record any bill for the purchase of flask and has also failed to prove that the consignment contains any article like flask and has only produced a courier receipt on which article i.e. medicine has been mentioned . So the complainant is entitled for  refund of Rs.3797/- as the price of the medicine.

9.       Consequently we  partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3797/- i.e. price of the articles i.e. medicine to the complainant. Opposite parties  are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/- as well as litigation expenses of Rs. 2000/ to the complainant. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 16.8.2017.                                                          (