Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/48/2021

Shree Maruti Courier Service Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Balkar Singh Key Maker - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Goyal & Dipsy Gupta Adv.

18 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	48 of 2021
Date of Institution	22.06.2021
Date of Decision	18.01.2022

Shree Maruti Courier Services Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.10 (2 Kanal), Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative Suresh Chand.

                                   …..Appellant/Opposite Party

 

Versus

M/s Balkar Singh Key Maker, Booth No.95, Janta Market,
Sector-27-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Sh. Balkar Singh.

       …..Respondent/Complainant            

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh.Harsh Goyal, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Respondent.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 8.6.2021, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, now District Commission (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions: -

     “From the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of Opposite Party has been established, which certainly has caused harassment & loss to the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against OP with direction to reimburse an amount of Rs.27116/- excluding taxes being cost of the consignment. The OP is also directed to pay to the complainant a compository amount of Rs.7,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment, is doing the work of making Keys in the name & style of ‘M/s Balkar Singh Key Maker’. It was stated that the complainant booked a courier on 21.05.2019
   (Annexure C-1) containing Keys with Opposite Party and paid a sum of Rs.47/- to Opposite Party.  It was further stated that at the time of booking of the courier, the complainant disclosed to the Opposite Party about the article (Keys) in the consignment and its cost, to be delivered to M/s Car Key Point, Jaipur, Rajasthan.  It was further stated that the price of the Keys which were sent to M/s Car Key Point, Jaipur, as per bill was Rs.31,996.88 (Annexure C-2) and the said amount was to be paid by the M/s Car Key Point on receipt of the said consignment, but, the said consignment was not delivered by the Opposite Party nor it has been returned.  It was further stated that the complainant kept on contacting the Opposite Party about the fate of his consignment, but the Opposite Party neither delivered the consignment to the consignee nor settled the claim of the complainant despite sending emails (Annexures C-3 and C-4).  It was further stated that the complainant made several request to the Opposite Party, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties filed its reply and stated that the complainant had booked one Shipment vide Docket No.19436720011021 dated 21.05.2019 with Opposite Party’s Franchisee Office at Chandigarh to be delivered to the consignee i.e. Car Key Point at Jaipur, Rajasthan.  It was further stated that the complainant did not disclose the value of the said shipment and neither produced any invoice in this regard nor got it insured being high value shipment. It was further stated that certain terms & conditions were agreed upon between complainant and the Opposite Party and as such have entered into an agreement for One Year vide dated 01.12.2018 and therefore, the terms & conditions were agreed upon and duly signed & sealed by the complainant (Annexure R-1). It was further stated that as per Clause No.8 of the agreed terms & conditions, which clearly says about the Limitation of Liability of Carriage that “Maximum Liability of the Company will not exceed ten times of Courier Charges for uninsured shipment in case of documents and five times in case of Non-Documents.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party never offer the insurance cover and in the event of a claim or damage, they will issue a COF (Certificate of Fact) only.   It was further stated that at the time of booking, if the complainant disclosed the value of the shipment, he would have been suggested to get it insured prior to booking, but it was not disclosed by the complainant.  It was further stated that the complainant was approached to settle the claim as per agreed terms & conditions, as mutually agreed upon between the parties, but the complainant refused. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowedthe complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
9. On going through the documents, it is observed that the appellant was having full knowledge about the articles to be shipped, being party under agreement. On a perusal of the terms and conditions it has been mentioned under one of the clause, that non-document shipment must be accompanied with invoice/bill for actual contents and the appellant is under obligation to correct the invoice of the non-document shipment before booking. In this case, the appellant by not doing so, had put the respondent at risk without taking any liability on its own. The learned District Commission has held that the Opposite Party/appellant had been grossly deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant/respondent and therefore allowed the complaint with the above directions as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In our eyes, we find that the order passed by the learned District Commission is to be upheld and accordingly the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appellant is directed to comply with the order of the learned District Commission.
10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
12. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

 

18.01.2022

      

 

                                                         Sd/-     

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

                                                                        Sd/-

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

GP