BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.337/16.
Date of instt.: 04.11.2016.
Date of Decision: 02.06.2017.
M/s. Choudhary Sanitary & Tiles, new Timber Market, Jind Road, Kaithal, through its proprietor Sh. Anshul Choudhary S/o Sh. Sanjay Choudhary r/o Kurukshetra Road, Model Town, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Flyking Courier, Shop No.15, Bajrang Market, Kaithal (Haryana), Tehsil & District Kaithal.
- Flyking Courier, 100 Mall, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana), District Ambala.
- Flyking/Shree Shyam AIR Services, 18 Mallic Street, Kali Godown, Kolkata, 700007.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is carrying its business of sanitary and tiles under the name and style of M/s. Choudary Sanitary & Tiles, New Timber Market, Jind Road, Kaithal. It is alleged that he sent 15 items of JAQUAR of the value of Rs.15,000/- for replacement in a sealed packing of weight of 3 Kgs. at the address of M/s. Arvind Ji JAQUAR Private Company, SCO No.52-53, Sector-17A, Chandigarh (U.T.), through Op No.1 vide receipt No.47658457 dt. 08.03.2016 and paid Rs.60/- as courier charges. It is further alleged that the above-said packet of courier of the complainant was not received by the addressee. This way, the Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the Ops did not appear. Op No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 19.12.2016, whereas Ops No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 16.03.2017.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CG and Mark-CA to Mark-CC and closed evidence on 01.05.2017.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant is carrying its business of sanitary and tiles under the name and style of M/s. Choudhary Sanitary & Tiles, New Timber Market, Jind Road, Kaithal. The complainant sent 15 items of JAQUAR of the value of Rs.15,000/- for replacement in a sealed packing of weight of 3 Kgs. at the address of M/s. Arvind Ji JAQUAR Private Company, SCO No.52-53, Sector-17A, Chandigarh (U.T.), through Op No.1 vide receipt No.47658457 dt. 08.03.2016, Mark-CC and paid Rs.60/- as courier charges. According to the complainant, the above-said packet of courier of the complainant was not received by the addressee. The complainant sent the registered notice to the Ops and copy of the same is Ex.CA and the postal receipts are Ex.CB to Ex.CD. The complainant prayed for that the Ops be directed to pay the value of the items amounting to Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest. From the receipt Mark-CC vide which the items were sent through courier, it is clearly mentioned on it that This Non Negotiable Consignment Note is subject to standard condition shown on the reverse side. The courier specifically limit its liability to a maximum of Rs.100/- per note for any cause Record for 30 days only. Therefore, the liability of the Ops is upto Rs.100/- only. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority cited in 2016(2) CLT page 134 (NC) titled as Anita Rani Vs. Department of Posts & another, wherein it is mentioned in the head-note that Post office-Registered post-Loss during transit-Held-In respect of the articles sent by speed post, the rules, framed under Section 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, provides for compensation equal to the composite speed charges-The compensation which can be awarded against the post office for the aforesaid deficiency in service cannot exceed that amount. In view of the above, the complainant is entitled for the charges spent on the courier but from the receipt, Mark-CC, the maximum limit for the loss is Rs.100/-. No doubt, in the present case, the Ops have proceeded against exparte but the complainant has to prove its case. In view of the document Mark-CC and the above authority, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.100/- only for the loss of the items during the courier.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to pay Rs.100/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.1100/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.02.06.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
