BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                 Complaint No.:85 of 2017.                                                 

                                                                 Date of Instt.: 14.06.2017.

                                                                  Date of Decision: 18.11.2019.

M/s Saini Mobile Point, near Meham Gate, Fancy Chowk, Bhiwani, Haryana through its proprietor.          

                                                                   Complainant

                             Versus

1.M/s DTDC Courier Express Limited Branch Office Improvement Trust Market, Near Shenai Banquet Hall Circular Road, Bhiwani through its proprietor/incharge.

2.M/s DTDC Courier Express Limited, registered office No.3, Victoria Road, Banguluru-560047 through incharge.

                                                                   Opposite parties

                             Complaint Under Sections 12 & 13 of the                   Consumer Protection Act,1986.

BEFORE:             Shri  Nagender Singh, President.

                             Shri Shriniwas Khundia, Member.

Argued by:           Sh. Shanker Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER:

                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had sent mobile part S6 Roz Golden having value of Rs.14535/-   to M/s UT Electronics Pvt. Ltd. village Pahat Saint Vivekanand Road, Jhirakpur by courier through opposite party No.1 vide receipt No.Z09480951 dated 17.12.2016 but the said courier had not reached to its destination. The complaint lodged complaint regarding this to the opposite party No.1 but the opposite parties had not redressed the grievance, therefore, the complainant got served legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service.  

2.                          Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the contents of the consignment were not declared by the complainant at the time of booking of the consignment. It has been further submitted that, in case of any loss or damage, the liability of the opposite parties is limited to Rs.100/- only. The opposite parties has taken all due care and cautions which they take in their ordinary course of business. The contents of the packet were not declared nor it was insured, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. The complainant has not suffered mentally and physically due to non delivery of the consignment.  The consignment was lost and regarding this intimation was given to the complainant and the claim of the complainant was duly investigated but it was found that a sealed packet without declaring the contents and value was booked for its delivery; therefore, the claim was rightly rejected. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.                          Thereafter both the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 and closed the evidence on 26.10.2018 whereas the opposite parties have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure D1/1 and closed the evidence on   30.07.2019.

4.                          Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been heard and the material available on the case file has been perused very carefully.

5.                             It is not disputed that the complainant had booked a courier on 17.12.2017 from Bhiwani to Zirakhpur and regarding this Rs.60/- had been charged by the opposite party No.1 as is evident through  receipt Annexure C4. The complainant has come with a plea that the courier did not reach to its destination and due to this the purpose of sending the courier was not fulfilled. Now the question arises as to whether there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The plea taken by the complainant that the opposite parties have not delivered the courier to the addressee has been admitted in the reply filed by the opposite parties as they have admitted that the consignment has been lost. Since there was privity of contract between the parties, therefore, the complainant cannot be left to suffer loss on account of deficiency on account of opposite parties and on this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Rana Document Centre V. Pawan Kumar Goyal I (2012) 29 wherein   Hon’ble Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that Courier-Non delivery of letter- Deficiency in service-Unfair Trade Practice-Complaint allowed and compensation granted-Hence, present appeal-Undisputedly, letter booked was neither received by addressee nor returned to the complainant- There was privity of contract between complainant and appellant-complainant could not suffer for lapse of appellant-On account of non receipt of letter to his sister  before day of Raksha Bandhan, complainant suffered mental,  physical and emotional harassment-Deficiency in service on part of appellant proved-Compensation rightly granted-Impugned order upheld.   The plea taken by the opposite parties that their liability is limited to Rs.100/- in case of loss of damage of the consignment as the complainant had not declared contents of the consignment but this plea is also not tenable as in column No.8 of Annexure C4, receipt issued by the opposite party No.1 the charges against tariff including of FSC& ST, risk surcharge and service tax etc. has been mentioned as Rs.60/- which the complainant has paid. Moreover, the description of contents and value of goods have also not been mentioned in the receipt. It was the duty of the opposite parties to mention the contents of the consignment in the column of description of the contents and value of goods in the receipt when it has been received from any consumer. In the present complaint the column qua description of content and value of goods have been left blank in receipt Annexure C4, therefore, we found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The case laws titled as M/s Blue Dart Courier Services and another Vs. Modern Wool Limited III (1993) CPJ 308 (NC) and  Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.Suresh I (1994) CPJ 52 (NC)  relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite parties are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint, therefore, the same are being distinguished.

6.                                   In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the law laid down in Rana Document Centre V. Pawan Kumar Goyal (supra) we are of the opinion that the act and conduct on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in rendering service, therefore, we allow the present complaint directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.14000/- being value of the articles contained in the consignment booked by the complainant. The opposite parties are  further directed to pay a sum Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. Order of this forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount of Rs.14000/- will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of order till realization. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 18.11.2019

                             (Shriniwas Khundia)           (Nagender Singh)

                            Member                                   President,

                                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.