DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:97 of 2011] Date of Institution : 23.02.2011 Date of Decision :11.08.2011 --------------------------------------- Smt. Manju Batra wife of Sh. Rakesh Batra resident of House No.238, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., SCO No.461-462, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Manager. 2. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., DTDC House, #3 Victoria Road, Bangalore – 560 047 through its Managing Director. 3. Sh. Pawan Aggarwal (Franchise of DTDC, Shop No.295, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. S. C. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. G. L. Aggarwal, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt. Manju Batra has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the price of Saree along with interest @15% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of reputation in society; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that on 19.08.2010, she booked a parcel containing a Saree and Rakhi for being delivered to her brother Sh. Ram Swarup at Delhi. She paid the requisite charges for it vide receipt Annexure C-1. According to the complainant, she had purchased the said Saree for Rs.18,200/- from Gulati store vide Bill dated 14.08.2010 (Annexure C-2) and an additional sum of Rs.350/- was paid as stitching charges. According to the complainant, after a few days, she made enquiries from her brother about the fact as to whether the parcel has been received by him or not? She was astonished to know that the parcel had not reached by that time. So, she contacted the Franchise Office at Chandigarh who assured the complainant for making enquiries. The Franchise office also suggested the complainant to send reminder to Head Office, Bangalore. So, the complainant wrote a letter to the Head Office, Bangalore. She received reply dated 9.9.2010 intimating her that the parcel has not been located so far and investigations are going on. Thereafter, according to the complainant, she made several efforts to know the status of the parcel but to no effect. So, ultimately, she issued a legal notice dated 6.1.2011 but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, the factum of booking of parcel has not been specifically denied. However, according to OPs, the complainant had not disclosed the contents and the price of the articles sent through that parcel. It has also been pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement arrived at between the parties, OPs are only liable to pay a sum of Rs.100/- in case of loss of parcel. It has also been pleaded that as the consignment was of a value more than Rs.10,000/-, it was required to be insured by the consignor. It has further been pleaded that the consignment in question is still under search and the same shall be delivered to the complainant as and when traced out. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 5. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs is that the complaint is barred by limitation, so, it deserves dismissal on this score alone. Admittedly, the consignment was booked on 19.8.2010 and the complaint was filed on 22.2.2011. Thus, the complaint is within a period of two years from the date of occurrence of cause of action. In these circumstances, the complaint is within limitation. 6. Faced with this situation, it was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for OPs that as per the terms and conditions contained in the receipt (Annexure C-1), the complainant was required to lodge a complaint within 30 days of the booking of the parcel. To our mind, the terms and conditions mentioned on the receipt cannot overrule the provisions of the statute. In these circumstances, in view of Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, these terms and conditions have no force. Hence, the complaint is within limitation. 7. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for OPs is that as per terms and conditions contained in the receipt (C-1), OPs are liable to pay Rs.100/- only for loss of the parcel. This argument too has no force. The receipt cannot be treated as agreement as it does not bear the signatures of the complainant. So, the complainant is not bound by the terms and conditions printed on the receipt. This view stands fortified by the ratio of case titled “M/s On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited Vs. Sh. Jaspal Singh & another’ decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh vide order dated 16.07.2011 passed in First Appeal No.157 of 2001. 8. Therefore, the above said clause is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Annexure C-2 is the copy of Bill vide which the complainant purchased the Saree. From this document, it is apparent that the price of the Saree was Rs.18,200/-. So, OPs are liable to pay this amount to the complainant because of loss of the parcel. 10. Faced with this situation, it was argued by the learned counsel for OPs that the complainant did not disclose the contents of the parcel, so, OPs are not liable to pay the price of the article. This argument too has no force. On the receipt itself, it has been mentioned that the parcel contains one Saree worth Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the complainant disclosed the contents of the parcel and its price. In these circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for OPs has no force. 11. Thus, as discussed above, it has duly been proved that a parcel containing a Saree worth Rs.18,200/- was booked with the OPs for being delivered to Sh. Ram Swarup at Delhi. OPs failed to deliver the said parcel to Sh. Ram Swarup, which amounts to deficiency in service. 12. So, in view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed: - i) To pay an amount of Rs.18,200/- to the complainant being the price of the Saree in question. ii) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. iii) to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 13. This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay Rs.23,200/- i.e. [Rs.18,200 + Rs.5,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.23.02.2011 till actual payment besides payment Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 11th August 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.97 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 10.08.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 11.08.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
