Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/320

Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harpal Singh and anr. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Sharma & Hoshiar Singh

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                                     

                   First Appeal No.320 of 2013

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 21.03.2013              

                                                          Date of Decision:  21.08.2015

 

M/s Track on Courier Private Limited, C-114, Naraina Industrial Area Phase 1, New Delhi 110020, through its Assistant General Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …..Appellant/Opposite Party no.1                                             

                                      Versus

 

1.       Harpal Singh, Prop. H.S Electronics, Opposite Josan Market, Hall Bazar, Amritsar.

                                                                                                           …Respondent/Complainant

 

2.       Trackon Courier Private Limited, through its Branch Office near  Paris Hotel, Opposite Hide Market, Amritsar, through its Branch           Manager.

                                                                                                                 Performa Respondent/Opposite Party no.2

 

First Appeal against order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                      : Sh.Hoshiar Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent                  : Ex-parte

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the opposite party no.1 in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 13.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar, accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till its actual payment, besides Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred by the opposite party no.1 now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Harpal Singh has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that the complainant has been carrying on work of  repairing electronics parts  to earn his livelihood.  The complainant is a consignor of a parcel sent through OPs, who is courier service, vide docket no.260840931 dated 05.10.2011 by paying the charges to OPs. The complainant handed over a packet containing one JVC Car CD having the value of Rs.30,000/- to the OPs. The said amount has been declared on the consignment note, courier, which boasted itself to be the one of the best courier service and assured delivery of the packet within 24 hours from Amritsar to New Delhi. OPs issued docket no. 260840931  dated 05.10.2011 getting the requisite charges from the complainant with the assurance that packet would be delivered to the consignee on the address M/s Impal Electronics A-62 Naraina Industrial Area Phase 1 New Delhi, on the packet within 24 hours. The complainant approached the consignee and asked whether said packet has been received by them, but the consignee informed that they have not received any such packet. The complainant approached the OPs and OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other and they also  approached their office at Delhi and ultimately they informed the complainant that they have lost the said parcel and the same has not been delivered to the consignee at the destination. The complainant sought the amount of the product in the packet i.e. Rs.30,000/-, but OPs refused to make the payment. The said packet containing JVC Car CD has not been delivered by the OPs to complainant till this date, nor payment has been made of the cost of the product declared on the consignment note to complainant. The act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OPs to pay the cost of JVC Car CD contained in the said packet, as declared on consignment note amounting to Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 12% from 19.11.2010 till its realization, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement by raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is not maintainable, as no specific allegations have been leveled in the complaint against the OPs. The complainant is a gross abuse of the process of Consumer Forum and it cannot become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous persons to the file the complaint to extract money in the garb of compensation. The matter in dispute cannot be decided in a summary procedure, as elaborate evidence is required in this case. The complaint was contested even on merits by the OPs. Any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was vehemently denied by the OPs and OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 along with copies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3. As against it OPs tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Sh.A.S Bajwa Branch Manager of OPs along with copies of documents Ex.R-1. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Amritsar accepted the complaint of the complainant directing the OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- as price of the lost consignment along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till its payment, besides Rs.2,000/-, as costs of litigation. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Amritsar, the OP No.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the record of the case.

6.      The District Forum observed in the order under challenge in this case that complainant being consignor of a parcel containing one JVC Car CD having value of Rs.30,000/- sent it through OPs to consignee M/s Impal Electronics A-62 Naraina Industrial Area Phase 1 New Delhi , vide docket no.260840931. Ex.C-2 is courier receipt dated 5.10.2011 of Rs.300/-, which has been charged by the OPs from complainant for sending the parcel, but parcel did not reach the consignee. The complainant approached the OPs, but OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately they informed that they have lost the said parcel in the transit and could not deliver the same to the consignee. On the above-said observation, the District Forum awarded the cost of the lost consignment to the complainant with interest. The evidence is required to be examined by us on the record to assess the correctness of the findings recorded by the District Forum under challenge in this case. The affidavit of complainant Harpal Singh Ex.C-1 is on the record. This affidavit is reiteration of the version of the complaint on oath in this case. Ex.C-2 is copy of receipt. Ex.C-3 is the letter regarding non-delivery of the consignment addressed to The Director M/s Trackon Courier Ltd/OPs.  The OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.A.S Bajwa Branch Manager Trackon Courier Ex.R-1. He stated in this affidavit that mere oral submission of the complainant is not sufficient to prove the negligence.  The complainant has no loucs standi to file the complaint.

7.      We have examined the above evidence on the record. There is affidavit Ex.C-1 of the complainant on the record in support of his averments. Copy of the courier receipt Ex.C-2 is placed on the file. The OP has not placed on record any courier receipt to prove that any terms and conditions in the shape of contract were printed. The copy of courier receipt produced by the complainant is Ex.C-2 on the record. The value of consignment parcel is declared, as Rs.30,000/- on it. The onus is on OPs to prove that there was any contract entered into between the parties restricting the liability of the OPs. We find that there are no such terms and conditions printed on the overleaf of the courier receipt Ex.C-2 restricting the liability of Ops. No such document has been produced on the record by the OPs and OPs have proper opportunity to rebut it. The general law would come into operation because liability of the OPs have not been restricted by any special contract in this case. The declared value of the consignment is Rs.30,000/- on courier receipt Ex.C-2. The OPs failed to rebut the affidavit of the complainant that the consignment was lost and complainant had to suffer the loss therewith. The District Forum, thus, rightly awarded the amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till its actual along with costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. We do not find any material infirmity and illegality in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case calling for any interference therein.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in this ex-parte appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal is hereby-dismissed exparte.

9.      The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.17,800/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after  45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount shall be paid  by the appellants to the complainant after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August 21 ,  2015.                                                         

(ravi)