DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 26 dated 10.01.2018
Date of decision: 18.12.2018.
Pankaj Kumar son of Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma, resident of House No.109, New Abadi Circular Road, near Dera Radha Swami, Balocha Wali Basti, Ferozepur City-152002, at present working at R.B. Knit Exports (Export Wing), G.T. Road, Doraha, Distt. Ludhiana-141421.
.…Complainant
Versus
- M/s. First Flight Couriers Limited, Jandhu Tower, 2nd Floor, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141`003, through its Manager Mr. Pathak.
- M/s. First Flight Courier Limited, having its Corporate Registered Office at G-1001/02-10th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Opp. Jay Coach Flyover, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063 India.
....Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
For complainant : In person.
For OPs : Sh. Chaman Lal Vashisht, Advocate
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that he holds RD account No.2013978 with post office at Arya Samaj Chowk, Ferozepur City and he intended to surrender that through agent Mr. Vinod Sachdeva. For that purpose, complainant sent related documents i.e. copy of Adhar card, PAN card through courier through OP company on 10.11.2017. As per online status dated 11.11.2017, said courier reached the above said agent Vinod Sachdeva, but on verification from said Vinod Kumar, complainant got knowledge as if the courier has not reached him. On verification from OP at Ludhiana, they claimed to be not knowing if the courier has reached destination or not. On 07.12.2017, said courier parcel consisting of documents returned back to complainant at his office address by OP having its office at Ludhiana. Complainant filed complaint with Consumer Helpline at New Delhi on 09.12.2016, but no satisfactory reply was received by the complainant from OP till date. Thereafter, complaint to OP company at Mumbai through speed post was sent, but no reply of the same even received. Due to negligence of the OPs, the documents sent by the complainant did not reach the destination in time, but were received returned by the complainant later on. On account of this, complainant could not get refund of the amount to his credit and he had to borrow Rs.90,000/- on interest. So direction sought to OPs to pay Rs.90,000/- plus up to date interest along with harassment charges.
2. In joint reply filed by OPs, it is pleaded, inter alia, as if complaint is not maintainable in the present form, more so when the consignment booking party has not declared the value of the packet and nor the packet was got insured for the estimated value. Complainant has no cause of action and he has approached the Forum by suppressing the material facts in filing this false and frivolous complaint. Complainant is not a consumer of OPs and he is not entitled to any relief. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and nor any unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs. Parties are governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the booking consignment note because those were duly agreed by the parties. As per those terms and conditions, in case of any losses and damages, liability of OPs will be limited as per terms and conditions. As the said consignment has been received back by the complainant and as such, he is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this complaint, more so when he has no locus standi even to file this complaint. It is claimed that in fact M/s. G.K. International, Sahnewal is a franchisee of OP and M/s. R.B. Knit Export, G.T. Road, Ludhiana booked the consignment dated 10.11.2017 through franchisee, who were to deliver to Mr. Vinod Sachdeva at Ferozepur. The said parcel was delivered to Vinod Sachdeva on 11.11.2017, but he returned back the consignment stating that consignment does not belong to him and that is why it was received back by OPs. Thereafter, this courier parcel was returned back to the party, which booked the consignment. Each and every other averment of complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C11 and thereafter, closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Manager Operations of OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and then closed evidence.
5. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through carefully.
6. Copies of Adhar card and of the PAN card of the complainant are produced on record as Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 along with letter Ex. C3 regarding claim against OPs. The courier in question was got booked in name of M/s. R.B. Knit Exports is a fact borne from the receipt issued to consigner as Ex. C3A, copy of which is also produced on record as Ex. R3. Perusal of Ex. C3A=Ex. R3 establishes that the consignment was booked in name of R.B. Knit Exports and the envelop sent to Mr. Vinod Sachdeva by R.B. Knit Exports (Export Wing), G.T. Road, Doraha, District Ludhiana. That envelop is produced on record as Ex. C4. In view of this, certainly submission advanced by counsel for OPs has force that R.B. Knit Exports in fact was the consumer and not the present complainant. Realizing this position, complainant contended in person that he is employee of R.B. Knit Exports and has been sending the correspondence of R.B. Knit Exports as well as of self in the name of R.B. Knit Exports. No authorization in name of complainant Pankaj Kumar shown to be given by R.B. Knit Exports for sending the documents/parcels in name of R.B. Knit Exports. Even the designation of complainant in R.B. Knit Exports not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in the affidavit and as such, if at all envelop Ex. C4 sent by the complainant to Mr. Vinod Sachdeva on the basis of the consignment receipt Ex. C3A, then the same was sent by him without any authorization from R.B. Knit Exports. As the name of consigner is R.B. Knit Exports as mentioned in Ex. C3A/Ex. R3 and Ex. C4 and as such, it is obvious that services of sending the documents availed by R.B. Knit Exports and not by complainant, on payment of consideration. Being so, submission advanced by counsel for OPs has force that complainant is not a consumer of OPs. As relationship of consumer and service provider do not exist between complainant and OPs and as such, certainly this consumer complaint is not maintainable.
7. Document Ex. C6 even produced by the complainant shows as if the courier parcel sent by R.B. Knit Exports on 10.11.2017 to Ferozepur. As consigner/customer is R.B. Knit Exports and even email correspondence took place between R.B. Knit Exports and OPs, as borne by email pages numbering 4 of Ex. C11 and as such, it is obvious that virtually R.B. Knit Exports has been projected as customer and not the present complainant.
8. There is no material on the record to suggest that services by R.B. Knit Exports obtained from OPs for the benefit of complainant through Ex. C3A=Ex. R3. So also complainant is not a consumer of OPs, more so when OPs through agreement Ex. R2 has given its franchisee to G.K. International, who has been described as authorized franchisee of OPs through letter Ex. R1.
9. It is admitted by complainant that the courier parcel was received back by him late and as such, loss to complainant not at all caused because the documents had been received back by him. Complainant must have earned interest on the RD, closure of which he is seeking and as such he has not sustained any loss. This is positive case of OPs that Vinod Sachdeva, to whom the documents through courier were sent by the complainant, were returned by him after retaining the courier for one day and thereafter, this courier was returned back to complainant. Admission of the complainant in this respect regarding receiving back of the courier consisting of documents enough to establish that OPs have taken care of ensuring that courier reaches in safe hands, if not accepted at destination. Ex. R5 is the statement showing as if this consignment delivered to Vinod Sachdeva on 11.11.2017 and as such, present is not a case in which the courier did not reach at the destination. So plea taken by OPs is correct that Vinod Sachdeva after retaining the courier for few days, returned back the same to OPs and that is why it returned back the same to complainant. In view of that deficiency in service on the part of OPs even does not exist at all.
10. In view of the above discussion, complaint being not maintainable merits dismissal and same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Vinod Gulati) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:18.12.2018.
Gobind Ram.
Pankaj Kumar CC/18/26
Present: Complainant Sh. Pankaj Kumar in person.
Sh. C.L. Vashisht, Advocate for OPs.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Vinod Gulati) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President 18.12.2018
