Haryana

Ambala

CC/129/2018

Mukesh Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Logicy Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

25 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  129 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :    20.04.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   30.03.2021.

 

Mukesh Malik son of Shri Charanjit Malik, aged-31 years, resident of House No.67, Nr. Satsang Bhawan, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Logicy Pvt. Ltd. Through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory-Shri Puneet Goutam, 512, B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt.
2. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory, 8^th Floor, Silver Utopia, Cartinal Gracious Road, Andehri (East) Mumbai.

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Suresh Bhola, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 already ex-parte v.o.d. 06.06.2018.

Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.    

 

ORDER:     SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To deliver the consignment at the destination, containing all the items booked with the OP No.1.
2. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and also for the loss of status and prestige in the eyes of his relative.
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.  
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the complaint are that the OP No.1 is running business of Courier service under the name and style of “LOGICY” at B.C.Bazar, Ambala Cantt. and is the authorized dealer of OP No.2. Complainant had booked Dox with passport, 2 Woolen Suites (Kurta, Legging, suit) Kidley Thermal, Beclomethasaone Cream etc. (weighing 6 kg) to send it to his close relative Mr. Vikram Singh, 102-25, Atlontic Ave, Richmond Hits, New York USA through OP No.1 on 30.11.2017, by making payment of Rs.7,320/-, regarding which OP No.1 sought approval of the complainant through e-mail, on the same day vide invoice No.985639 on 30.11.2017. OP No.1 told that the courier of the complainant would be sent through OP No.2, for which OP No.1 had demanded Rs.1,300/-, which were duly paid on 30.11.2017. OP No.1 had again demanded Rs.5,000/-, on 09.12.2017 from the complainant, for delivery of the courier, which was also paid. On the demand of the OP No.1, again payment of Rs.5,000/- was paid to the OP No.1, for delivery of the courier. He had paid in total sum of Rs.18,620/- to the OP No.1 for delivery of courier. As per the assurance given by the OP No.1 that the delivery of courier will be made within 3 days as per the rules of OP No.2, but even after lapse of more than 18 days, the courier had not been delivered to his relative at U.S.A. Complainant told about the said fact to his relative Vikram Singh, who also contacted the OP No.1 through e-mail and it apologized and assured on 12.01.2018, that courier will be delivered by tomorrow after 5:30PM. The OP No.1 had sent E-mail to the complainant regarding handing over of the consignment to the OP No.2. The complainant requested the OPs to deliver the consignment at the destination, but the OPs have been putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other. By not delivering the courier at the destination the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Separate registered notice was issued to OP No.1, but none has turned up on its behalf, accordingly it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 06.06.2018.

                   Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections maintainability, regarding concealment & suppression of material facts, not come with the clean hands, bad for mis-joinder of necessary party and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that since the OP No.1 is not related or associated with the OP No.2 hence it cannot be said as to what discussion took place between the complainant & OP No.1. Thus OP No.2 has no knowledge or intimation about the alleged dealing or booking of alleged consignment. DOX shipment is booked only to carry documents and not cloths etc. It is further stated that no consignment or shipment as alleged, was ever booked with the OP No.2, thus it cannot be questioned or held liable for the non-delivery of the same. The OP No.1 is not a dealer or agent of OP No.2 and is not associated with it in any manner. It is further stated that if any mischief or fraud has been committed by the OP No.1 with the complainant than it is surely liable to be prosecuted and the OP No.2 cannot be held liable in any manner, being not associated with the OP No.1. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to C13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Frank Fernandes, authorized signatory of DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.2.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Annexure C-1 is the invoice issued by the OP No.1, whereby the complainant booked a courier, by paying an amount of Rs.7,320/- with the OP No.1, to send it to his friend at U.S.A. The Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that at the time of booking of the courier, the OP No.1 told the complainant that the courier would be sent through OP No.2 i.e. DHL. The OP No.1 demanded Rs.1300/-, which was duly paid by him on 30.11.2017, vide invoice Annexure C-3, thereafter OP No.1 again demanded Rs.10,000/-, which the complainant paid on 09.12.2017, by way of two receipts of Rs.5,000/- each,  Annexure C-5 and C-6. In this way complainant had paid in total Rs.18,620/- to the OP No.1, for the delivery of the said courier, but the same has not been delivered by the OPs to the addressee. Complainant requested the OPs either to deliver the consignment to the consignee/addressee or to pay him the value of the goods of the consignment, but nothing was done by them. He further submitted that the OPs may be directed to deliver the courier at the destination, in case OPs are unable to deliver the same, then in that situation the OPs may be directed to pay the value of the items contained in the courier and the courier charges. They may also be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses.

                   The Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 vehemently argued that OP No.1 is not its dealer. The OP No.2 has no business dealings with the OP no.1, as such, it has no knowledge regarding booking of the consignment by the complainant with the OP no.1. Since, OP No.1 is neither its agent nor dealer nor associated with the OP No.2 in any manner, therefore it is not liable for any act or omission of the OP No.1. Merely by writing the name of the DHL, on the invoice by the OP No.1, does not mean that DHL i.e. OP No.2 has business dealings with the OP No.1. Complainant is not the consumer of the OP No.2, therefore the complaint filed against it may be dismissed with heavy costs. This contention of the OP No.2 went unrebutted, as none on behalf of the OP No.1 has come to contest the complaint. In this case, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remains un-rebutted. Thus, we have no other option, except to believe the version of the OP No.2, which was duly supported by affidavit.

                   On perusal of invoice Annexure C-1, issued by OP No.1, it is revealed that the name of certain courier companies has been mentioned on it, including the name of OP No.2. The OP No.2 has specifically denied that OP No.1 is not its dealer, nor it has any business dealing with OP No.1. There is nothing on the record on the basis of which it can be said the OP No.1 has tie up with the OP No.2. Facing with this situation, we are of the opinion that the OP No.2 has nothing to do with the consignment/courier, which the complainant had booked with the OP no.1, therefore it cannot be said to be responsible for non-delivery of the consignment/courier and the complaint filed by the complainant against it is liable to be dismissed. From the record, it is borne out that the courier, which the complainant booked with the OP No.1 has not been delivered. The Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that, if the courier cannot be delivered, then complainant is entitled to get the value of goods and the courier charges. However, the complainant has not placed on record any documents regarding the value of the goods contained in the courier. In the absence thereof, the exact value of the goods cannot be determined. Complainant has also demanded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him, which seems to very excessive. No doubt the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions to the OPs to deliver the courier at the destination, but his counsel has also made a submission that, if the courier cannot be delivered, then complainant is entitled to get the value of the goods contained in the courier and the courier charges. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we are of the view that the OP No.1 shall deliver the courier immediately at the destination and if it fails to do so, then it shall pay the lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e. the value of the goods contained in courier  courier charges to the complainant, to meet the end of justice.          It shall also pay the compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant along with litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it in the following manner:-

1. To deliver the courier at the destination or to pay the lump sum         amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant i.e. value of the items of           the courier + courier charges paid by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony        and physical harassment suffered by the complainant
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP NO.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.04.2018, till its realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 30.03.2021

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)                      (Ruby Sharma)         (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                   Member                       President