BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.53 of 2017 Date of Institution : 6.3.2017
Date of Decision : 15.12.2017.
M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at 2nd Floor, NRB Complex, Above ICICI Bank, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through Hare Ram Singla, Retainer Advocate.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Handling agent of DTDC Sachin Sukhia, M/s Secure Services, Shop No.10, HUDA Complex, Near Town Park, Sirsa. District Sirsa.
2. DTDC Express Ltd., 107, Hisar Super Franchise, Sector 27, Green Square Market, Hisar, District Hisar through its Manager/ Incharge.
3. DTDC Express Ltd., Regional Office, Jaipur, 256, 256A, RIICO Industrial Area, Mansarover, Jaipur 302 020 (Raj.) through its Manager.
4. DTDC Express Ltd, Regional Office, Chandigarh SCO 267, Sector 35D, Chandigarh- 160 036, through its Manager.
5. DTDC Express Ltd, Corporate Office, DTDC House No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore- 560 047 (Karnataka), through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L. AHUJA …………..PRESIDENT.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Sain, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is a non banking finance company engaged in the business of finance including finance of commercial vehicles. That the complainant has disbursed the vehicle loan to the different parties and got signed the loan agreements with the proper documents. The complainant always sends these all documents in regular course to the document cell at Jaipur through courier. It is further averred that the complainant booked a courier through the opposite parties on 15.2.2016 vide receipt No.Z78792637 and paid Rs.80/- from Sirsa and collection boy of the addressee collected the aforesaid courier from the branch of the complainant. The complainant had sent the original loan agreements with other documents of 14 clients through said courier. That the aforesaid courier was sent to the Manager, Jaipur Document Cell of the company Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., but the said courier has not reached to its destination till now and the consignee has not received the same till now. Further the ops have failed to deliver the said courier and its delivery report despite various requests made by the complainant. It is further averred that complainant has inquired about the fate of the above consignment from the op no.1 but they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Due to said gross careless and negligent service on the part of the ops, the complainant has suffered huge losses, which are estimated at Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant is thus, entitled to get this amount from the ops. That the complainant approached and requested the ops to either return back the above consignment to it or to make good the losses suffered by it, but the ops did not pay any heed to the same. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops through registered post on 17.12.2016 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of express clause of arbitration provided in the terms and conditions mentioned on the overleaf of the consignment note. It is clearly mentioned on the consignment note itself that” Please refer to only terms and conditions printed overleaf of this consignment note before tendering a shipment to DTDC”. Clause 25 of the terms and conditions clearly lays down that in case of any dispute, the matter will be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the sender and the other by the DTDC. Thus, in view of the arbitration clause, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable because he has tried to misconstrue the contents of the policy of the company and that this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is submitted that the para no.4 of the complaint is admitted to the extent of booking consignment with op no.1 as alleged and rest of the paras are denied. The complainant did not disclose the contents of the consignment and it was booked as presented by the complainant and sent to Jaipur. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the ops and thus ops are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not explained as to how it suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. If the consignment contained certain documents then the complainant cannot suffer this much loss because the documents can easily be prepared again. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant produced affidavit of Sh. Hare Ram Singla, Retainer Advocate as Ex.C1, copy of courier receipt Ex.C2, copy of notice Ex.C3, copies of postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C8 and copy of details of loan documents Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Sachin Sukhija, Handling agent as Ex.RW1/A and copy of terms and conditions Ex.RW2.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of record reveals that complainant in order to prove its case has furnished affidavit of Sh. Hare Ram Singla, Retainer Advocate as Ex.C1, copy of courier receipt Ex.C2, copy of notice Ex.C3, copies of postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C8 and copy of details of loan documents Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit of Sh. Sachin Sukhija, Handling agent as Ex.RW1/A and copy of terms and conditions Ex.RW2.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant had sent a courier through ops on payment of Rs.80/- and till date the courier sent by the complainant has not been returned to the destination/ addressee despite best efforts of the complainant while approaching the ops time and again and even a legal notice was served. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has produced a copy of delivery status report and has stated that courier was reached at destination of Jaipur but same has not been delivered to the addressee. The ops could not produce any document from which it could be presumed that same has been delivered to the addressee. The ops have not placed on record any evidence that said courier has been delivered to the addressee.
7. Though, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that courier was having the loan documents of 14 clients, list of which has been placed on file as Ex.C9 but it is an admitted fact that no declaration was made by the complainant while handing over courier to the ops for the delivery of the same to the addressee at Jaipur. So, it is difficult to understand what was inside the courier. But however, it is proved fact that courier sent by complainant has not been delivered to the addressee to whom it was sent by the complainant which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops and the complainant deserves to be entitled for compensation qua the loss of courier.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied by all the ops jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:15.12.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
