DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.215 of 18-05-2011 Decided on 21-07-2011
Balkaran Singh Brar, aged about 50 years, son of Ajmer Singh, Resident of House No.20525, Street No.11-A, Guru Teg Bahadur, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, having Branch Office at Bathinda, through its Authorized Person/Branch Manager. DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Corporate Office, DTDC House, 3, Victoria Road, Banglore-560047, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Person. Feedex India Pvt. Limited, 238, Shant Nagar, East of Kailash Delhi-110065, through its Managing Director/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. Deepak Sehgal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. Navpreet Singh, counsel for opposite party Nos.1&2. Opposite party No.3 exparte. ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that Navreet Kaur Brar (Neeta Brar) the daughter of the complainant is residing in Newzealand for higher studies. She was in need of some documents, clothes, driving license, Classical ceremonial gift items etc. For this, the complainant through the opposite party No.1 (who is the representative of the opposite party No.2) has sent the said articles through opposite party No.3 on 30.03.2011. The opposite party No.1 has charged Rs.4,500/- as fee for delivery of the said articles in Newzealand but till today, the opposite parties have not delivered the said articles to his daughter. Due to this, his daughter has been forced to suffer problems. The complainant has approached the opposite parties several times and requested them to do the needful but nothing has been done by the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages plus Rs.1,00,000/- being the value of articles plus Rs.4,500/- charged by the opposite parties as courier delivery charges alongwith cost of Rs.11,000/-. 2. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have filed their separate joint written statement whereas the opposite party No.3 despite service of notice has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have pleaded that a sealed consignment was booked by the complainant with the opposite party Nos.1&2 and all the terms and conditions were read over to the complainant at the time of booking the consignment and he accepted the same as such, the opposite party Nos.1&2 are liable in case of any damages occurred during the course of business to the extent of Rs.100/-. No declaration of articles of consignment was made by the complainant at the time of its booking. Consignment was not insured. The consignment relates to international delivery and the same are delivered by hiring the services of the opposite party No.3 who has their service office at New Zealand and the consignment is still under process and record regarding the delivery of consignment will be produced as available from the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have further pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant had sent some documents, clothes, driving license, Classical ceremonial gift items to his daughter in New Zealand through opposite party No.3 on 30.03.2011. For this, the opposite party No.1 has charged Rs.4,500/-. These articles are to be delivered within few days but the opposite parties have not delivered the said articles at its destination in New Zealand. The opposite parties have admitted the fact that the sealed consignment was booked by the complainant with the opposite parties and all terms and conditions of the opposite parties were read over to the complainant at the time booking of the consignment and he accepted the same. The opposite parties are liable for damages if any, to the extent of Rs.100/- only. The consignment relates to international delivery and the same are delivered by hiring the services of the opposite party No.3 who has their service office at New Zealand and the consignment is still under process. The opposite parties further submitted that record regarding the delivery of consignment to be produced as available from the opposite party No.3. 6. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have taken legal objection that the complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant has not lodged the claim within time. This contention of the opposite party Nos.1&2 is not tenable as the limitation provided u/s 24 (A) of the ’Act’, the complaint can be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action, so the present complaint is within limitation. 7. The complainant had booked the consignment on 30.03.2011 and the opposite party Nos.1&2 have specifically submitted in para no.3 of their written statement on merit that the consignment is still under process which shows that the opposite parties do not know, where the consignment is? The opposite party No.1 charged Rs.4,500/- from the complainant vide Ex.C-2. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have submitted in their reply as well as in their affidavit Ex.R-1 that the terms and conditions were read over to the complainant but no such terms and conditions have been placed on file by the opposite party Nos.1&2. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have admitted in their reply and evidence that they had charged Rs.4,500/- from the complainant but till date, they have failed to deliver the consignment to the daughter of the complainant in New Zealand or return back the same to the complainant. 8. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have further submitted that their liability is only restricted to Rs.100/- is not tenable in the view of following settled law by the Hon’ble State Commissions. The Support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled Blazeflash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs V. Manish Jain, I (2010) CPJ 542, wherein, it has been held that:- “....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 Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in case titled Pavit Garg Vs Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. & Ors., IV (2009) CPJ 271, wherein it has been held that:- “....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 directed alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. - Order modified – Relief entitled.” Further, the reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Arjun Kumar Vs D.T.D.C., II (209) CPJ 462, wherein it has been held that:- “....Courier Services – Consignment no delivered – Absence of term in contract regarding non-delivery, wrong delivery, damaged delivery, not absolved courier from liability to perform its part of contract – Shortcoming, imperfection, inadequacy in performance amount of deficiency in service – Address mentioned in consignment very clear – No endorsement made in consignment, courier service only up to Dimapur – Place of address within operative limits of Dimapur Branch – OP guilty of deficiency in service proved – Compensation awarded.” “......13. In the instant case, the compensation being sought by the complainant is not on the terms of contract nor is in consonance with the consideration paid by him. However, taking overall view of the matter, we allow the appeal and deem that lumpsum compensation and cost of Rs.25,000 shall meet the ends of justice.” Further, the reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in case titled Professional Courier & Anr. Vs Balkrishna, II (2009) CPJ 30, wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Courier Services – Certificates – Non-delivery of – Cover sent to Hyderabad instead of Sonepat, by mistake – Not delivered to addressee – Complainant’s wife not selected in job interview – Mistake on part of courier company proved – Complaint allowed by Forum – Compensation of Rs.20,000 and Rs.10,000 awarded towards mental agony, pain and suffering respectively – Costs awarded – Order upheld in appeal.” 9. In the present case, the complainant had booked the consignment after paying Rs.4,500/- but the consignment did not reach at its destination. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No1. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and Rs.10,000/- as compensation against the opposite party No.1 in lumpsum including cost paid for consignment Rs.4,500/- which have been charged by the opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.2&3. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’ Pronounced 21.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
|
