Haryana

Jind

60/13

Prabhat Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dara Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjay Sharma

15 Dec 2014

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 60 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 8.3.2013

   Date of final order: 29.1.2015

 

Parbhat Garg Partner Bombay Artificial Jewellery Ramrai Gate, Opp. Jain Sthanak, Jind-126102(Haryana). 

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Dara Singh (Authorised Agent), Blazeflash couriers Ltd. shop No.36, old court road, super market, Jind 126102.
2. Blazeflash Couriers Ltd.(Corporate Office),  Blazeflash house IIIrd floor, 2E/8 Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055.
3. Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. (Regd. Office), unit No.10 and 11, J & K Industrial Estate, off Mahakali Caves road, MIDC Signal, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400093.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

 

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:      Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Adv. for  complainant.

                 None for opposite parties.

            

ORDER:

        The brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant is  doing the business of selling and purchasing the artificial jewellery under the name and style of Bombay Artificial Jewellery. It is stated that on 27.10.2012 he had sent some artificial jewellery worth Rs.23,310/- to Sh. Rajesh Gupta, 594, Sector-20A, Chandigarh vide

                        Parbhat Garg Vs. Dara Singh etc.

                                          …2…

invoice No.78 dated 27.10.2012 through courier from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 assured that the said consignment will be delivered on 28.10.2012 in the morning.  The complainant came to know that the above said consignment has  not been delivered to Sh. Rajesh Gupta on 30.10.2012 then he approached the opposite party No.1 regarding the above said consignment. The opposite party No.1 assured that the consignment will be delivered on today. But the consignment was not delivered. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and requested to deliver the consignment to the consignee but the consignment was not delivered to the consignee till today nor the same has been returned back to him. The complainant served a legal notice dated 22.1.2013 upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service is alleged on the part of the opposite parties.  It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the cost of jewellery i.e. Rs.23,310/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the written reply stating in the preliminary objections  that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that as per consignment note placed on record, the impugned packet was booked by one Mr. Vijay, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. There is no

                        Parbhat Garg Vs. Dara Singh etc.

                                          …3…

evidence on record to establish that the consignee has not received the booked parcel. The complainant itself is at fault in not reporting non-delivery within the stipulated period, mentioned in the consignment note.  The impugned consignment note is a contract and the consignor is bound with its terms and conditions that “the liability of Blazeflash for any loss or damage to the consignment in transit or for any delay in delivery of the consignment shall be strictly restricted/limited to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment and Rs.1000/- for each international consignment. Further Blazeflash shall also not be responsible for any consequential losses or damages or compensation”. The booked packet was not delivered to the consignee and also if there is an element of deficiency of service, the liability of the opposite party is limited to Rs.100/- only. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

3.      In evidence the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, acknowledgments Ex.C-2 and C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 to C-6, copy of legal notice dated 22.1.2013 Ex. C-7, copy of receipt Ex. C-8, copy of invoice Ex. C-9 and copy of application dated 8.11.2012 Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Arvind Varshney Ex. OP-1 and copy of receipt Ex. OP-2  and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant is doing the business of selling and purchasing the artificial jewellery. The complainant on the assurance

                        Parbhat Garg Vs. Dara Singh etc.

                                          …4…

given by the opposite party No.1 dispatched some artificial jewellery worth Rs.23,310/- to Sh. Rajesh Gupta, 594, Sector-20A, Chandigarh vide invoice No.78 dated 27.10.2012 through courier from opposite party No.1 Ex.C-9 vide docket No.197744449 dated 27.10.2012. The opposite party No.1 assured that the said consignment will be delivered on 28.10.2012 but the consignment was not delivered. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 but delivery of the consignment could not be effected till today nor the same has been returned back to the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 22.1.2013 to the opposite parties but till today the opposite parties neither pay the amount of above said jewellary nor sent any reply to the notice.

5.     In the written reply, the opposite parties have stated that the services of the opposite parties have been availed by the complainant, for commercial purposes, being the transaction of sale and purchase, therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer. The complainant itself is at fault in not reporting non-delivery within the stipulated period mentioned in the consignment note. The liability of the opposite parties in the event of any non-delivery, due to transit loss, is limited to Rs.100/- and the consigner is bound with the terms and conditions of the booking. At the time of booking the consigner has not disclosed/declared the contents or value of the consignment nor the said consignment was accompanied by any document or the alleged invoice. In clause 6 of the terms and conditions printed on the back of the receipt it has specifically been

                        Parbhat Garg Vs. Dara Singh etc.

                                          …5…

mentioned that the liability shall not exceed Rs.100/- per consignment Ex.OP-2. Even if the letter was not at all delivered as in this case the compensation in such a case could not exceed Rs.100/-.

6.     As per Ex. C-9 the complainant had sent artificial jewellery worth Rs.23,310/- to Sh. Rajesh Gupta, 594, Sector-20A, Chandigarh vide invoice No.78 dated 27.10.2012 through courier from the opposite party No.1 but it was not delivered. So it constituted a deficiency in service on  the part of opposite party No.2 and 3. As such, the complaint is accepted. Consequently, the opposite party No.2 and 3 jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.100/- as compensation  to the complainant and also pay Rs.2100/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied within one month after receiving the certified copy of this order.  Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 29.1.2015

 

                                                          President,

          Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                                                 Redressal Forum, Jind