STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(First Appeal No.157 of 2011)

M/s On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited, SCO No.68-70, Sector 17A, Chandigarh through its Administrative Manager Sanjeev Puri.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.            Jaspal Singh s/o Sh. Avtar Singh r/o House No.3235, Sector 15D, Chandigarh

              ....Respondent

2.            Sumit Kohli, Jagdamba Enterprises, r/o House No.9, Sector 15A, Chandigarh

              ....Proforma Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Tarun Gupta, Adv. for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.5.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 and the OPs were directed to pay to the complainant Rs.9,800/- alongwith interest @9% and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

2.                      The facts, in brief, are that on 27.9.2010, the complainant hired the services of OP-1 for sending one Sony PSP (Portable Play Station) worth Rs.9,800/- to Sh. Gajinder Singh R/o  J-5 Mukharam Garden, Near Raj Cinema, New Delhi. However, despite their assurance, OP-1 did not deliver the article on 29.9.2010 at New Delhi.  The complainant tried to find out the factual position of the courier from OPs but every time received negative response. Even his request to provide claim form was not adhered to and OP-1 also refused for any settlement. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                      In their written reply the OPs pleaded that as per terms and conditions mentioned on the consignment note, issued at the time of booking of courier, the OP specifically limited its liability to a maximum of Rs.100/- per consignment for any loss to the consignment within India (domestic) and to a maximum of US$ 100/- for international consignments, hence the complainant was not entitled to claim more than Rs.100/-.  It was pleaded that as the complainant himself made a mistake by not declaring the value and contents of his consignment/envelop and refused to take an insurance cover on his consignment, thus there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainant, agent of the OPs and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as mentioned in the opening para of this order.

5.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP-2.

6.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant on the point whether the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not.  We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same need not be admitted for regular hearing.

7.                      It is not disputed that a parcel was booked by the complainant with the OPs vide Annexure C-2 for being sent to Sh. Gajinder Singh R/o  J-5 Mukhram Garden, Near Raj Cinema, New Delhi.  It is also a fact that the said parcel did not reach the addressee.  The contention of the complainant is that it contained a Sony Portable Play Station (PSP) which had been purchased by him for Rs.9,800/- vide Annexure C-1 from Ajay Enterprises. The contention of the OPs is that in view of Annexure C-2, their liability was limited to only Rs.100/-; that it was necessary for the complainant to declare the value of the contents of the parcel and to get the same insured and in its absence, he was not entitled to a compensation of more than Rs.100/-. This contention did not find favour with the ld. District Forum.  We also are not inclined to agree to the same.  The consignment receipt (Annexure C-2) was prepared by the officials of the OPs and it was their duty to get the value of the parcel declared in the proper column of the same.  They did not get it done.  So far as the contention that the OPs were liable only to pay Rs.100/- in case of loss is concerned, there is no doubt that there is an endorsement on Annexure C-2 but it was never agreed to by the complainant.  In order to limit the liability, it was necessary that the agreement to that effect should have been signed by the complainant and in its absence the unilateral term of limiting the compensation to Rs.100/- will not be applicable.  The ld. Counsel for the appellant referred to the case Indrapuri Express Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Allied Business Corporation-2007 (3) CLT 673 (NC) and M/s Desk to Desk Courier & Cargo Vs. Kerala State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd.-2004(2) CLT 117 (NC), but we are of the opinion that these authorities are not applicable to the present case because in those cases, the consignment note, on which the terms and conditions were printed, was signed by the complainant, which in the present case is not.  Otherwise also, in view of judgments in the cases of Blue Dart Express Limited Vs. Stephen Livera (R.P. No.393 of 1997 (NC) decided on 14.12.2001) and Blaze Flash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohit J. Poladiya & Anr.-I(2008) CPJ 452 (NC), it is the liability of the OPs to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him/her by misplacing the parcel.

8.                      The ld. District Forum, therefore, rightly directed the OPs to refund the price of the Portable Play Station alongwith interest since the filing of the complaint and also Rs.10,000/- for harassment and  mental agony faced by the complainant. We do not find any justification to admit this appeal for regular hearing.  The same is according dismissed in limine.

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

19^th July, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg