CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/280/15

          Date of Institution:-    23.07.2015

          Order Reserved on:- 10.05.2024

                   Date of Decision:-      27.06.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Cinesonic Audio Visual Pvt. Ltd.

Thorugh Its Director Sh. Vishal Suri

Having its office at 10/2,

DLF Industrial Area, ShivajiMarg,

Moti Nagar, New Delhi - 110015

    .….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. GMS Couriers

F-139, Mayapuri Industrial Area,

Phase-II, New Delhi – 110064.

Also at:

GMS Couriers

Head Office at:

No.189/1, 6^th Cross, 3^rd Main,

Chamrajpet, Bangalore – 560018

2. Tridev Cargo

97-A, DDA Flat, Mata SundariMarg,

Near Ranjeet Singh Marg,

New Delhi - 110002

          ……Opposite Party

Per Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member

1. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that the Complainant availed the services of OP-1 and booked a consignment containing a video conferencing unit to be delivered at the India Institute of Foreign Trade at Kolkata on 29.08.2014. He was issued a docket number 104094811.

2. OP-1 assured the Complainant that the video conferencing unit had been dispatched from Delhi and would be delivered to Kolkata within the time period stipulated by the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that the consignment was delayed. The Complainant repeatedly enquired about the shipment status from the OP but was not given a satisfactory answer. After several communications via email, OP-1 informed the Complainant that his consignment had been handed over to OP-2 for delivery to Kolkata.

3. Since the time of delivery was of the essence for the delivery of the consignment to the Complainant's client, the Complainant states that he had to resend the same equipment to his client, due to which he incurred double expenditure, causing him financial loss as well as mental pain and agony.

4. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.11.2014 to OP-1 and 2 to no avail. Hence, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,61,790/-, Rs.1 Lakh towards compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by him, and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation charges.

5. Notice was issued to the OPs, who did not appear despite adequate service, proof of which was filed by the Complainant on record. Therefore, the OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.10.2015. Thereafter, the proprietor of the Complainant companySh. R.K. Suri filed ex-parte evidence and written arguments reiterating the averments made in his complaint and proving the documents he had filed to corroborate his case on record. None appeared on the date fixed for final arguments; hence, we felt it prudent to decide the present complaint based on the material on record, given the long pendency of the case.

6. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have also perused the documents placed on record.

7. We find that the Complainant hired the services of OP-1 to send the consignment, which contained a video conferencing unit, from Delhi to Kolkata on 29.08.2014. The OP issued a receipt towards the courier to be sent to Kolkata annexed on page no.13 of the complaint. The Complainant alleges that the consignment was worth Rs.2,61,790/-. He has annexed the copy of the invoice on page no.15 of his complaint. The Complainant states that OP-1 did not deliver the consignment on time as stipulated by the Complainant.

8. The Complainant found that despite waiting patiently, the status of his consignment on the OP-1 website consistently showed that the parcel was in transit. After repeatedly requesting OP-1 to clarify the status of his consignment, the Complainant came to know that OP-1 had further hired the services of OP-2 to deliver the Complainant's consignment to Kolkata, which had eventually been delayed. The Complainant, having no other option, had to resent the video conferencing unit for the second time to his client, causing him mental agony and financial loss.

9. The Complainant has annexed the emails exchanged between him and OP-1 in which, on 14.10.2014, the OP-1 offered to settle the Complainant's claim to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as the Complainant's parcel, which was being sent via train was in the custody of GRPF and Railways claim Department as there was a robbery in the train luggage compartment carrying the load from Delhi to Kolkata for further investigations. The Department was neither ready to release the balance parcels until the investigation was complete nor to divulge which parcels were stolen. The OP-1 informed the Complainant that they were unsure whether the parcel was safe. The Complainant rejected the OPs offer and was ready to close the case in Rs.1.75 lakhs as a counteroffer.

10. Since OP-1 and 2 are ex-parte and chose not to appear before us for reasons best known to them, therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of the Complainant, which he has duly substantiated with cogent evidence.

11. However, as far as OP-2 is concerned, the Complainant and OP-2 did not enter into a contract, and hence, OP-2 cannot be held liable for the deficiency, if any, in the present complaint. Thus, we absolve OP-2 from the present complaint.

12. In view of the discussion above, we feel that OP-1 as a courier Company was duty bound to ensure the timely and safe delivery of the consignment to the addressee which it could not ensure and hence in our view it should be held liable and accountable for their laxity in fulfilling the promise made to the complainant.

13. Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct OP-1 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the Complainant, along with Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 27.06.2024.