Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/633

Samarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Hanush Rai

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                 C.C. No.633 of 10.09.2014

                                                          Date of decision:31.03.2015 

1.Samarjit Singh son of Amarjit Singh, resident of House No.28, New Punjab Mata Nagar, Ludhiana.

2.Gurinder Singh son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, resident of House No.4888, HIG Flats, Block –C, Pancham Housing Society, Sector-68, Mohali.  

                                                          ….Complainants.

                                       Versus       

 

1.M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, SCO 267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh through its Director/Managing Director/Partner/Proprietor.

2.M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, SCO 137, Basement, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.

                                                                             …Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms. Babita, Member.

                  

Present:       Sh.Harish Rai Dhanda, Adv. for complainants.

Sh.Sarvjit Singh, Adv. for Ops.

 

                                                ORDER

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Samarjit Singh and Sh.Gurinder Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainants’) against M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited and others (hereinafter in short to be described ‘Ops’), directing them to pay Rs.10,170/- i.e. the cost of the goods alongwith interest besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as legal expenses and Rs.22,000/- as counsel fee and other benefits to the complainants.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainants is that the complainant no.1 was to go to Sydney(Australia) for a long stay as his brother-in-law i.e. the complainant no.2, was also going to Australia and as such, the complainant no.1 sent some of his household goods in reference with air ticket of complainant no.2 through courier through the OP2 for delivery to Mr.Ashwani, 4, Spoonbill Avenue, Block Town, NSW-2148, Australia. The detail of the articles lying in each box was duly provided to the Ops while booking the goods. The OP2 claimed to be working under the OP1 had assured the complainant that this consignment of courier would be delivered within 5 days and on the assurance of the Ops, the complainant delivered the goods to the OP;s for courier to the said addressee and paid an amount of Rs.34,865/- as courier charges and the Ops issued receipt containing airway bill NO.N94978586 to the complainant. However, out of the four parcels, one parcel was tampered with and goods were taken out of it and it was filled with the rags of make the weight corresponding to the original weight and on opening, it was found that one jacket costing Rs.4000/-, pressure cooker costing Rs.3400/-, valet costing Rs.1600/-, two taps costing Rs.300/-, two tap accessories costing Rs.200/-, one Cello Spice Box costing Rs.600/-, Four pens costing Rs.190/-, two knives cum peelers costing Rs.260/- and one bottle opener costing Rs.160/- was missing from the said consignment. Immediately, the complainant approached the Ops and made demand of short delivery vide letters/emails dated 6.12.2013, 24.12.2013, 8.1.2014 and also through various telephonic conversation but with no result and till date, neither the Ops have accounted for the lost goods nor delivered the same. The loss of goods has not only caused loss of money for the price of the goods but has also caused immense nuisance to the complainants and loss of utility of the goods which they had bought making the Ops liable to make good for such losses to the complainants. The complainants had sent a legal notice dated 4.6.2014 to the Ops calling upon them to deliver the abovesaid missing goods to the complainant or in the alternative to pay the cost of the goods i.e. Rs.10,710/- alongwith compensation but despite receiving the said notice, Ops failed to do so and sent false and frivolous reply dated 30.6.2014. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Sarvjit Singh, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed. The complainants have not approached this District Forum with clean hands and have concealed and suppressed the material facts and the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the answering Ops. Neither the risk charge policy was adopted by the complainants nor the goods were insured inspite of guidance by the answering Ops. The instant complaint of the complainants is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. The complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint as the same is neither verified correctly nor supported with proper affidavit. The complaint of the complainant has technical as well as legal default. The complainants are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint against the answering Ops. The terms and conditions were to be followed by the complainants. The booked parcels were delivered in intact condition to the addressee/consignee as provided at the time of booking. Reply on facts, it is submitted that there is no special kind of contract with the complainants for assurance to deliver within 5 days. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned  in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainants levelled against the answering OPs being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.               In order to prove the case of the complainants, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainants has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12.

5.                 On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops adduced evidence by placing on record affidavits Ex.RA of Sh.Rajeev, its Admn.Manager, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OPs and rebutted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RX of Sh.Sarvjit Singh, in which, he has proved the print outs Ex.R2 and Ex.R2 which contained the information pertaining to the terms and conditions of contract in question. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has proved on record documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.

6.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainants has orally contended that the complainant no.1 had sent the household goods through courier of OP2 and it was assured that said parcel containing the goods shall be delivered within 5 days in Australia and details of the articles lying in each box was duly provided to the Ops while booking the goods on payment of Rs.34,856/- as courier charges against receipt containing airway bill No.N94978586 issued by the Ops to the complainant. However, out of the four parcels, one parcel was tampered with and goods were taken out of it and it was filled with the rags of make the weight corresponding to the original weight and on opening, it was found that one jacket costing Rs.4000/-, pressure cooker costing Rs.3400/-, valet costing Rs.1600/-, two taps costing Rs.300/-, two tap accessories costing Rs.200/-, one Cello Spice Box costing Rs.600/-, four pens costing Rs.190/-, two knives cum peelers costing Rs.260/- and one bottle opener costing Rs.160/- was missing from the said consignment. Further contended that Ops are liable to make good for such losses incurred during their transportation to the complainant and costs of the goods i.e.10,710/- may be paid aloingwith relief as claimed for. Further, learned counsel for the complainants has placed on record judgment titled as First Flight Couriers Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd.III(2006)CPJ-125(N.C.).

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has filed the written arguments, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the Ops and further rebutted the documents placed on record by the complainants in their evidence. Further, it is averred that the complainants have nowhere mentioned in the complaint or elsewhere the number of parcels booked, their respective size, volume, weight and detail of goods booked etc. The complainants have intentionally concealed the terms and conditions mentioned on back side of booking slip. The signatory to the complaint is not identifiable and the complainants have not produced Ashwani Kumar, the alleged recipient of booked goods, as witness in court.

8.                We have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the complainants and have also gone through the written arguments alongwith judgments filed by the learned counsel for the complainants and have also perused the record on file very carefully.

9.                It is evident that the complainant no.1 Sh.Simranjit Singh had sent four parcels to Australia through courier of OP2 and one parcel was found to be tampered with. The items which were containing the alleged parcels, for which, the complainants have produced the bills as Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, were found missing, to which, the Ops have never rebutted. However, they have stressed upon some arbitration and also raised some of the objections in their written arguments about technicalities of the technical mistake on the part of the complainants but there is no denial qua the fact that they found deficient in rendering proper services to the complainants regarding sending the said items. The stand of the Ops with their liberty only upto Rs.1000/- is not tenable in the light of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments titled as First Flight Couriers Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd.III(2006)CPJ-125(N.C.), vide which, it has been observed that in case of non-delivery of parcel and value of consignment mentioned as Rs.4 lakh, the request to cover transit under insurance and deliver same to consignee not complied with. Hence, deficiency proved and contention of OP, liability limited to Rs.1000/- in terms of conditions of consignment note, not accepted.

10.              So, it is proved on record that the complainants had hired the service of Ops on payment of consideration, as such, the Ops are liable to deliver the goods in safe custody to the consignee which they have not done which clearly amount to deficiency in service on their part.

11.              In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we hereby direct OPs to pay Rs.10,710/- i.e. the costs of the goods to the complainants and further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainants, OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) to the complainants. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                 (Babita)             (Sat Paul Garg)         (R.L.Ahuja)

              Member                 Member                President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:31.03.2015

Gurpreet Sharma