DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:401 of 2011] Date of Institution :30.08.2011 Date of Decision :11.05.2012 -------------------------------------- 1. Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Aged about 48 years resident of House No.3593, Sector F, Chandimandir Cantt. Panchkula. 2. Sh. Kamal Preet Singh, Aged about 21 years, permanent resident of House No.3593, Sector F, Chandimandir Cantt., Panchkula [Presently residing at C/o Pushpendra Kumar, E-1, A-1, Vrindavan CHS, Sector 10, Near Sai Baba Restaurant, Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai – 400706. ---Complainants. V E R S U S 1. DTDC Couriers & Cargo Limited through its Managing Director, DTDC House – 3, Victoria Road, Banglore – 560647. 2. DTDC Couriers & Cargo Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. 3. DTDC Couriers, Motor Market, Booth No.202, Manimajra, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. G. L. Aggarwal, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. The complainants have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to: - i) Pay a sum of Rs.4,45,413/- (3400 x 3 = 10,200 Dollar) on account of loss of salary to complainant No.2 ii) Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony; iii) Pay costs of litigation; iv) Award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief the case of the complainants is that the on 24.06.2011, complainant No.1 hired the services of OPs particularly OP No.3 for delivery of a packet containing important document “Continuous Discharge Certificate” to complainant No.2 at Mumbai. He also paid a consideration of Rs.70/- vide receipt/voucher (Annexure C-1). It is averred that OP No.3 had promised to deliver the said packet within 2 days to the addressee at Mumbai. According to the complainant, the said packet did not reach the destination and a complaint in this regard was lodged by Sh. Gurpreet Singh (younger son of complainant No.1) vide complaint No.CFD0044899. It is averred that due to non production of the Continuous Discharge Certificate, which contains all the information about the person who has completed the course of Merchant Navy, the complainant No.2 has lost the opportunity of getting Job in “HANSEVAST SHIPPING COMPANY” and suffered a further loss of 3,400 US Dollar per month. According to the complainants, apart from the above mentioned complaint No.CFD0044899, they have also served a legal notice dated 16.07.2011 upon the OPs. As OPs failed to compensate the complainant in response to the said legal notice, so, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, it has been admitted that a sealed consignment was booked by complainant No.1 with them vide receipt (Annexure C-1). It is pleaded that at the time of booking the consignment, all the terms and conditions were read over to the complainant and he had accepted the same. According to the OPs, the complainant No.1 had not disclosed the contents of the consignment at the time of its booking and thus, he is bound by the terms and conditions as printed on the receipt/voucher (Annexure C-1). It is pleaded by the OPs that they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.100/- only to the complainants for the loss of the said consignment. Thus, according to the OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The averments made in the complaint stands fortified by the affidavit of the complainant No.1 whereas the pleadings of OPs have been supported by the affidavit of Sh. Mahesh Pathak, Assistant Manager of OP No.3. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents placed on record. 6. From the receipt (Annexure C-1), it is apparent that the complainant No.1 booked a packet from Panchkula through OP No.3 and the same was to be delivered to Pushpendra Kumar at Navi Mumbai. Admittedly, the complainant No.1 paid a consideration of Rs.70/- for booking the said packet. However, from bare perusal of this receipt (Annexure C-1), it is apparent that the contents of the packet were not disclosed by complainant No.1 at the time of handing over the same to OP No.3. There is no mention on the receipt about the fact that the contents of the said packet was disclosed its nature at the time of handing over of the said packet. In these circumstances, from the bald and self-serving deposition of the complainant No.1, it is not proved that the said packet contained the alleged “Continuous Discharge Certificate”. Admittedly, the packet has been lost in transit. So, in these circumstances, from the evidence on record, deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved. However, it is not proved that the complainant No.1 had sent a “Continuous Discharge Certificate” in the said packet. 7. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.100/- only in view of the clause printed on the receipt itself (Annexure C-1), which reads as under: - “No claim shall be entertained by DTDC for any loss or damage, non-delivery breakage, leakage, pilferage etc. of the shipment unless a written claim is lodged within 30 days from the date of booking subject to having paid risk surcharge of 2% on declared/invoice value. Maximum liability for any loss or damage is to the extent of Rs.100/- only if not covered under Risk Surcharge.” 8. Thus, from the documents on record, it is evident that the complainant No.1 did not pay any “Risk Surcharge” against the booking of the said packet and thus, he is to be compensated to the extent of maximum limit of Rs.100/- only as printed on the receipt (Annexure C-1). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not taking due care of the packet handed over to them by the complainant. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to the refund of Rs.70/- paid as postal charges and a compensation of Rs.100/- besides costs of litigation. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OPs, jointly and severally: - (i) to refund a sum of Rs.70/- to the complainants; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.100/- as compensation to the complainants in accordance with the clause printed on the receipt (Annexure C-1); (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.170/- i.e. (Rs.70 +Rs.100) would attract an interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.30.08.2011 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 11th May, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.401 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 10.05.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 11.05.2012 President Member
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
