Complainant present in person
Opponent through Adv. Waghchoure
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(27/06/2013)
This complaint is filed by the complainant for deficiency in service against the Courier Company under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is an Advocate by profession. She is staying at Baner, Pune. She used to send articles and envelopes through DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., who is the opponent in the present proceeding. The office of the said courier is near to the house of the complainant. The complainant has availed services of the opponent by paying charges of Rs. 50/- and the envelope containing DD as well as application of competitive examination, which was addressed to Registrar General, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court. She had appeared for the examination for the post of District Judge, which was held in 2012. She had submitted application online by online procedure and sent DD of Rs. 1000/- through courier to the Registrar General, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court. She had not received acknowledgement as regards the receipt of DD by the Registrar General, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court. She had verified this fact and came to know that the said DD was not received in fact. Hence, she had made enquiry with the opponent, but the opponent did not give satisfactory explanation. She was informed that the said envelope has been refused by the Registrar General, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court. Hence she had asked the opponent to return the said envelope. The opponent did not return the envelope containing DD of Rs. 1000/-. The opponent was reluctant to issue certificate about the missing of that envelope. In these circumstances, complainant has required to run from pillar to post for convincing Registrar General that she had actually sent DD by courier. She had sustained trauma, inconvenience and frustration due to bad service given by the courier. She had claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and cost of the litigation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.
2] The opponent appeared through Advocate and resisted the claim by filing written version. It is flatly denied that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Courier services. According to them address given on the envelope was not proper. Hence the envelope was not served upon the concerned addressee. It is also denied that the opponent has not given proper services to the complainant. It is further contended that as per agreement between the parties the consignor is entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 100/- only for missing of concerned envelope. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the parties and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent? | In the affirmative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
4] The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had submitted envelope containing DD of Rs. 1000/- for sending the same to Registrar General, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court through courier services of the opponent. It is the case of the opponent that the address given was not sufficient and said envelope was refused by concerned addressee. Hence there is no fault of courier services. It is further argued that as per the terms and conditions, which are printed on the receipt, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 100/- only for the loss and damages of the consignment.
The complainant argued before me that this is the best example of deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, as address, which is
mentioned in the receipt is sufficient. The envelope was send to Registrar General, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court, Bombay – 32 and this is sufficient address. Moreover, the opponent has not produced any record to show that the said envelope was refused by the concerned addressee. It is also pointed out by the complainant that the opponent has harassed her while issuing certificate as regards sending DD through courier services. She had visited the office of the opponent from time to time and requested for the same, but the said certificate was issued at the eleventh hour. She had submitted that, instead of making preparation of competitive examination, she had required to run from pillar to post and during that period she was under stress.
The learned Advocate of the opponent drew my attention to the receipt, which is produced on record and it reveals from the terms and conditions, which are printed on the back side of the receipt, that the concerned party is entitled to receive Rs. 100/- only. Learned complainant argued before me that her signature is not on the receipt and hence the terms and conditions are not binding upon her. She had further argued before me that compensation can not be restricted to Rs. 100/- only and in that context she has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court between “Madhur Courier Services V/S R.S. Pande” in Writ Petition No. 3623/2002 decided on 16/08/2002. The said Ruling is also relating to the compensation as regards missing of courier and in that Ruling it has been observed that, when the parties have not signed the contract, the conditions in the contract is not binding on the parties. It reveals from the receipt itself that it does not bear the signature of the complainant. Hence it can not be sad that the complainant is binding by the terms and conditions, which are printed behind the receipt of the courier.
It reveals from the record that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, as in order to substantiate its contention, the opponent has not produced the envelope, which was refused, as alleged by the opponent. It is also transpired from the record that the complainant has required to visit the office of the opponent from time to time for collecting evidence to show that she had actually sent DD of Rs. 1000/-. The averments made in the written version as well as written notes of argument of the opponent are ridiculous, as the address, which is mentioned in the receipt, “Registrar General, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court, Bombay – 32” is sufficient for the service of envelope.
The complainant has asked compensation for loss of business etc., but she is entitled for compensation only on the ground of deficiency in service and for mental torture and physical suffering as well as cost of the litigation. In my opinion, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation on all these grounds would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order,
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent
has caused deficiency in service.
3. The opponent is directed to pay an amount
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand
only) to the complainant within 6 weeks from
the date of receipt of this order.
4. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
5. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
