DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.239 of 04-06-2013

Decided on 21-08-2013

Jivan Sidhu aged about 28 years S/o Avtar Singh R/o H.No.16219-B, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.DTDC Couriers & Cargo Ltd., SCO 267, Sector-35D, Chandigarh, through its authorized person Sh.Anupama Bakshi.

2.DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., Railway Station Road, Near ATM of State Bank of Patiala, Bathinda, through its Manager/Authorized Person.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Kanwar Ajay Singh, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Navpreet Singh, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has sent courier containing pant through the opposite parties by parcel/consignment vide receipt No.Z80539553 dated 4.2.2013. The opposite parties have charged Rs.90/- for the delivery of the said parcel/consignment and assured the complainant that it would be delivered to the addressee in proper condition against proper receipt of stamp and signatures within 3-4 days. On inquiries the complainant came to know that no such parcel/consignment has been delivered to the addressee. The complainant contacted the opposite parties at Bathinda office, they assured him that after making inquiries, they would intimate the position of the said parcel/consignment to him. After inquiring about the said parcel/consignment, the opposite parties made the report dated 4.3.2013 that the said parcel/consignment has been lost. The complainant approached the opposite parties to refund the price of the pant i.e. Rs.4000/- alongwith Rs.90/- but they did not give any satisfactory reply to him. The complainant has also got sent the legal notice dated 7.5.2013 vide postal receipts No.A RP251761165IN and RP251761179IN to the opposite parties but they have neither refunded the amount to him nor given any reply to the said legal notice. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4000/- alongwith cost and compensation or to pay any other additional or alternative relief for which he is found entitled to.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the said parcel/consignment was booked with them and all their terms & conditions were read over to the complainant at the time of booking of the said parcel/consignment that has been accepted by him, as such the opposite parties are liable, in case of any damage occurred during the course of business, to the extent of Rs.100/- only. The said parcel/consignment is still under transit.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The parcel/consignment booked by the complainant with the opposite parties has never reached to its destination. The complainant had booked the said parcel/consignment on dated 4.2.2013 and paid Rs.90/- to the opposite parties. The said parcel/consignment has not reached the addressee till date, whereas the same has been sent in the month of February 2013 and a period of 7 months approximately has already lapsed but the opposite parties replied that the said parcel/consignment is still under transit.

6. A perusal of Ex.C4 a receipt bearing No.Z80539553 dated 4.2.2013 shows that clothes were declared by the complainant, chargeable weight was mentioned 1 kg and Rs.90/- was charged. A further perusal of Ex.C4 shows that the said parcel/consignment was to be delivered at Sunam. The plea of the opposite parties that the said parcel/consignment is still 'under transit' is not believable as Sunam is not a place very far away from Bathinda that can take 7 months for its delivery. The complainant has booked the said parcel/consignment of pant worth Rs.4000/-, this has been duly declared by the complainant that is proved from Ex.C4, although no amount of Rs.4000/- has been mentioned on this receipt yet it is believed that the complainant must have disclosed the price/value of the said pant to the opposite parties. It was the duty of the opposite parties to write the price/value of the said clothes (pant) on the said receipt. The another plea of the opposite parties is that their liability is limited to the extent of Rs.100/- only as per their terms and conditions. Thus this plea of the opposite parties is again not tenable as the complainant has declared the price/value of the clothes (pant) sent by him and has paid the amount of Rs.90/- for booking the said parcel/courier.

7. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C5 DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. Loss/Damage/Short Claim Form. A perusal of Short Claim Form shows the nature of the service failure:-'loss' and the detail of service failure:-'e-mail confirmation' shown tick, meaning thereby the said parcel/consignment has been 'lost' not 'under transit', whereas the opposite parties have given the contradictory reply that the said parcel/consignment is still under transit. The opposite parties have tendered only one affidavit Ex.OP1/1 in their evidence that too a short affidavit of Kuldeep Singh Maini, Manager Administrator, DTDC Office. In his affidavit he has deposed that the opposite parties are in business of Courier and Cargo and complainant booked a sealed consignment through opposite parties and all their terms & conditions were read over to the complainant at the time of booking the consignment and the complainant has accepted the terms & conditions at the time of booking the said parcel/courier, as such the liability of the opposite parties is limited to the extent of Rs.100/- only in case of any damage or loss occurred during the course of business. The consignment/parcel is still under transit.

8. In the abovesaid affidavit Ex.OP1/1, it is deposed by the deponent that the said parcel/consignment is under transit, whereas Ex.C5 clearly shows that the said parcel/consignment has been lost. Moreover the opposite parties have submitted that their terms and conditions were read over to the complainant and the complainant was agreed to the same, but no such terms and conditions has been shown to be supplied to the complainant at any stage. Moreover the opposite parties have failed to place on file these terms and conditions, thus till date no terms and conditions have been produced by the opposite parties before this Forum also, in such circumstances, these terms and conditions are not binding on the complainant. The Support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan in case titled Blazeflash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs V. Manish Jain, I (2010) CPJ 542, wherein, it has been held:-

“....Contention, value of parcels not mentioned – Liability in case of damage limited to only Rs.100 – Contention rejected – Terms and conditions printed on the receipt not binding unless same signed by consumer – Damage of Rs.9,000/- - suffered – Deficiency in services proved – Order upheld – No interference required.”

Further the reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in case titled Pavit Garg Vs Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. & Ors., IV (2009) CPJ 271, wherein it has been held:-

“....Contention, as per terms mentioned on envelope liability of postal authorities limited to Rs.100 only – Contention rejected – Contents of courier receipt in very fine print, practically illegible – No signatures put by appellant on the receipt giving consent to the terms of respondents – Admittedly letter delivered after 7 days – Delay not explained by respondents – Deficiency in services proved – Respondents directed to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. - Order modified – Relief entitled.”

9. Thus in view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have failed to deliver the said parcel/consignment to its destination. The complainant has duly declared the price/value of the clothes (pant) to the tune of Rs.4000/- and his parcel/consignment has been lost, thus it will meet the ends of justice if this complaint be allowed with some cost and compensation alongwith Rs.4000/-(cost of lost parcel).

10. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel of the opposite parties, have distinguishable facts and circumstances.

11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.10,000/- as compensation including the price of the lost parcel/consignment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses against the opposite parties.

12. The compliance of this order be done jointly and severally by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.

Pronounced in open Forum

21-08-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member