BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No : 99 of 2009

Date of Institution: 20.01.2009

Date of Decision  : 01.06.2010

Varun Utteraja, R/o 3291, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Mr.Mohinder Chopra, Prop. Mohindra Communications, Booth No.2, Sector 46, Chandigarh.

2]       On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd. through Managing Director, 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi 110015

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                           PRESIDENT

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                          MEMBER

PRESENT:      None For complainant.

Sh.Tarun Gupta, Adv. for OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                    The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Varun Utteraja, complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying that the OPs be directed to pay compensation  for a lost Sari as well as for deficiency in service.

                    The facts of the case are as under:-

1]                 The complainant had sent a Sari costing Rs.12,500/- )bill placed at Ann.-2) on the occasion of Karwa Chouth to his sister-in-law living in Gurgaon through OP No.1.  The Sari has not been delivered till date despite various visits of the complainant to the shop of OP No.1 where the package was booked. OP No.2 Courier Company has also failed to help the complainant to redress his grievance.  Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice to both the OPs on 10.12.2008 but no action has been taken by either of the OPs to help him in any way.  The complainant has thus approach this Forum for the reliefs already mentioned above.

2]                 The OPs No.1 & 2 in their joint reply have admitted that a parcel was booked by the complainant to be delivered at Gurgaon.  The contents of the parcel as well as the value of the article therein was not disclosed to the OPs at the time of booking the consignment.  Also the parcel had not been insured with any extra insurance charges at the time of booking.  The OPs say that the parcel was duly delivered at the destination.  They have further submitted that it is a settled law that the liability of a courier company is limited to the extent of Rs.100/- in case of loss of parcel.  They have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3]             We have heard the learned counsels for OPs and perused the evidence led by both parties in support of their contentions.  At the time of arguments, the ld.Counsel for the complainant was not present.  However, since the case has been adjourned many times for arguments, we decide to proceed and dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of the complainant.

4]             The complainant has attached the bill to show the cost of the lost article i.e. Sari as Rs.12,500/- sent by him through courier.  However, he has not mentioned the value of the article on the booking receipt of the OPs.  Also he has not got the article insured as should have been done when the item contained therein was a valuable article.  He has also not mentioned in his complaint whether the parcel was undelivered, or delivered empty. 

5]             The OPs in their reply have stated that the parcel was duly delivered to the consignee.  The contents and value of the article therein was not known to them.  If the relative of the complainant did not find the contents in the parcel intact, the OPs cannot be made liable for the loss especially since the value was not declared and the packet was not insured.  However, the OPs have not placed on record any receipt/document to show that the booked parcel was ever delivered to the consignee, so it cannot be proved that the consignment was actually delivered to the consignee, hence the deficiency on the part of OPs is proved. 

6]                    In view of the above, we are of the opinion that as the value of the article contained in the parcel has not been proved, so we cannot grant any amount beyond Rs.100/- to the complainant for the lost article.  However, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been proved.  This complaint is therefore allowed.  The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-

i)             To pay Rs.100/- to the complainant for the lost parcel.   

ii)            To pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and cost of litigation

                    This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the above amount of 5100/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 20.1.2009 till the date of actual payment besides the cost of litigation.

7]                 Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.06.2010                                                                      Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                                             (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’