Haryana

Karnal

CC/577/2020

Sunil Kumar Dhull - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DHL Nirmal Couriers - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Chauhan

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                    Complaint No. 577 of 2020

                                                    Date of instt.17.12.2020

                                                    Date of Decision:12.09.2023

 

Sunil Kumar Dhull aged about 39 years son of Shri Ram Kishan Singh Dhull, resident of house no.212, Ashoka nursery, Kunjpura Road, Karnal. Aadhar no.3208 2059 6854. Mobile no.94167 43997.

 

                                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s DHL Nirmal Couriers, # shop no.12, Post office Market, near Nehru Place, Karnal-132001, through its proprietor/partner/ authorized signatory Mohit Handa.

 

2. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., #A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-1110028, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

                                                               …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Anuj Chauhan, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:

                  

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 is maintaining a business firm under the name and style of M/s DHL Nirmal Couriers and OP no.1 is authorized person for consigning the courier of the company of OP no.2 as both of OPs are deals in providing couriers services to the consumers. On 04.12.2020, complainant had made contact with the OP no.1 for booking a courier for sending liquid Medicine I-Pulse+at the residence of his brother-in-law namely Sandeep son of Shri Ishwar Singh, at his residential address i.e. house no.1003, Sector-21, first floor, Panchkula, Haryana and booked courier vide receipt no.1410793178 of the OP no.2 and complainant has paid Rs.120/- for courier charges. At the time of booking said courier, the complainant had delivered the aforesaid liquid medicine I-Pulse+ to the OP no.1, which was duly packed by OP no.1 under the guidelines of OP no.2 and OP no.1 had given an assurance that the said medicine would be delivered within 4-5 days. Even after lapse of 4-5 days, the abovesaid medicine was not delivered at the destination, then complainant on 09.12.2020 made a telephonic call to the OP no.1 for knowing the status of delivery of medicines, on this OP no.1 started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and making excuse that the abovesaid medicine would be delivered to said Sandeep Kumar within 2-3 days. Thereafter, on 11.12.2020, complainant personally visited the office of OP no.1 for knowing the status of delivery of medicine, on this OP no.1 checked the status, but on checking nothing was found. Then OP no.1 made a telephonic calls to the OP no.2 and then they informed that the aforesaid courier has been returned back from the house of brother-in-law of complainant from Panchkula, because the same has not been received by him. At that time, OP no.1 assured the complainant that the said courier will be returned back to the office of OP no.1 within 2-3 days and then same will be returned to the complainant. On 13.12.2020, complainant made telephonic call to OP no.1 and asked him about status of courier, on this OP no.1 informed that the medicines has been leaked while transporting to the office of OP no.1. Complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and demanded back the financial loss suffered by him, because the cost of the aforesaid medicines was Rs.3148/- but OP no.1 refused to pay the cost of the medicine and courier charges of Rs.120/- and even started misbehaving with the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per clause 2 of terms and conditions of the OPs, no claim for any liquid or semi liquid articles shall be entertained. The terms and conditions are duly printed on receipt issued for consignment. Further, complainant did not avail any insurance or special risk for the good in question. It is further pleaded that complainant did not disclose that the articles being sent was liquid item. It is wrong to alleged that the complainant had delivered the liquid medicine to the OP no.1 and it was packed by OP no.1. In fact, complainant gave a packed parcel and even did not disclose that it contained liquid medicines, so giving of alleged assurance is out of question. It is further pleaded that consignee refused to receive the parcel by alleging that the medicine contained in the same was leaked, so the same was returned back to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of courier receipt Ex.C1, copy of bill of liquid medicine Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 28.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankit, Manager of Trackon Service Ex.OP1/A, copy of terms and conditions of Trackon courier private limited and closed the evidence on 05.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 04.12.2020, complainant booked a courier for sending liquid medicine I-pulse+ to his brother-in-law at Panchkula. The said medicine was not delivered by the OPs at the destination. On enquiry, it was found that the medicine got leaked while transporting. Due to the said act and conduct of OPs complainant has suffered a lot and prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per clause 2 of terms and conditions of the OPs, no claim for any liquid or semi liquid articles shall be entertained. The terms and conditions are duly printed on receipt issued for consignment. He further argued that complainant did not disclose that the articles being sent was liquid item and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant booked a parcel on 04.12.2020 for delivering at Panchkula. It is also admitted that the said parcel was leaked during the transportation.

11.           OPs have alleged that as per clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the OPs, no claim for any liquor or semi-liquor articles shall be entertained. They further alleged that said terms and conditions are duly printed on the receipt issued for consignment. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but they have miserably failed to prove their version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OPs have relied upon the courier receipt Ex.OP1 but said receipt is not issued in favour of the complainant rather same is blank one. No doubt in the backside of the said receipt, there are so many terms and conditions. On the other hand, complainant has relied upon the courier receipt Ex.C1, which was issued on 04.12.2020 by the OPs at the time of booking the parcel in question. During the course of arguments, complainant placed on file original courier receipt. On perusal of the said receipt, no terms and conditions have mentioned in the backside of the said receipt whereas in Ex.OP1, the terms and conditions have been mentioned. It has been proved from receipt Ex.C1 that at the time of booking of parcel there were no terms and conditions as alleged by the OPs.

12.           OPs neither returned the parcel to the complainant nor refunded the cost of the parcel alongwith courier charges. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           The complainant purchased the medicine for Rs.3148/-, vide invoice Ex.C2 and also paid the courier charges of Rs.120/-, vide receipt Ex.C1. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses etc.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.3268/- (Rs. three thousand two hundred sixty eight only) to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the abovesaid amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.09.2023         

                                                        President,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                          Member                           Member