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

========

Daman Preet Singh S/o Sardar Bhupinder Singh, House No.242, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]        M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Regional Office B-10, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Naraina, New Delhi – 110 028, through its Authorised Representative

2]        M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Having its Branch Office at SCO No.267, Sector 35-D, through its Branch Incharge/Manager.

3]        M/s. Bag it Today, Khasra No.371, Fatehpur Beri, Bhati Village, New Delhi 110074 Through its Managing Director/Chairman

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:        Sh.P.D. GOEL                                                           PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                    MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Neeraj Sobti, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Harpal Singh Taragarh, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

OP No.3 already exparte.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                     Succinctly put, the complainant purchased two consignments from OP-3 for Rs.39,998/- vide Ann.C-1 & C-2 respectively.  On being dissatisfied with the quality and material of said consignments, the complainant sent an e-mail (Annexure C-3) to OP No.3, whereupon it instructed him to send the consignments at its address vide e-mail dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure C-4).  As such, the complainant booked the said consignments to OP No.3, through OP No.2 vide receipts Annexures C-5 & C-6.  OP No.3 was informed accordingly about the dispatch of the consignment through OP-1 & 2. The scanned copy of the courier receipts, invoice and Booking ID was also sent to OP NO.3 vide Annexure C-7 (colly).  However, OP-3 informed the complainant about non-delivery of the consignment vide e-mail dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure C-8).  The complainant brought this matter to the notice of OPs No.1 & 2 vide e-mails Annexures C-9 to C-11, whereupon it was replied by OP No.1 that since the consignment is very old, so it did not have the details thereof, as they kept the record only for one month.  The complainant sent e-mails to OPs No.1 & 2 on 23rd & 27th Nov., 2011 (Annexures C-12 to C-14), but to no avail.  The OP No.3 again confirmed the non-receipt of consignments in question vide e-mails dated 12.12.2011 & 15.12.2011. Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs No.1 & 2 as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                     OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply, stating therein, that a sealed consignment was booked by the complainant with answering OPs and all terms & conditions were read over to him at the time of booking, which he accepted. The answering OPs are liable, if any damage occurs during the course of business, to the extent of Rs.100/- only.  It is further replied that the consignment of complainant is under search and presumed to be lost during its transit.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                     OP No.3 failed to appear, despite due service, hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.3.2012.

3.                     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                     We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 and have also perused the record.

5.                     The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant purchased two consignments from OP No.3 for Rs.39,998/- vide Annexure C-1 & C-2.  The complainant booked the said consignments to OP No.3, through OP No.2 vide receipts Annexures C-5 & C-6.  It was further argued that OP No.3 informed the complainant about non-delivery of consignment, who in turn brought this matter in the notice of OPs No.1 & 2, whereupon, it was replied by OP No.1 that it did not have the details thereof as the consignment is old one and it maintain the record only for one month. It was lastly argued that the non-delivery of the consignment by OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service.

6.                     The learned Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 countered the arguments of learned Counsel for the complainant by raising the plea that the sealed consignment was booked by the complainant with OPs No.1 and 2 subject to certain terms & conditions, which were read over to the complainant at the time of booking, which he accepted, so OPs No.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation. It was lastly argued that in case any damage occurs during the course of business, the OPs No.1 and 2 are liable to pay to the extent of Rs.100/- only.  It was also submitted that the consignment of complainant is under search and presumed to be lost during its transit.

7.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant booked two consignments to OP No.3, through OP No.2 vide receipts Annexure C-5 & C-6. The non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee – OP No.3 is also an admitted fact as OPs No.1 and 2 had specifically replied that the consignment of the complainant is under search and presumed to be lost during its transit. Thus, it is held that the consignments of Rs.39,998/- booked by the complainant to OP No.3, through OPs No.1 and 2 did not reach the destination.

8.                     Now, the only question which calls determination from this Forum is whether the OPs are liable to the extent of Rs.100/- only. The answer to this is in the negative.

9.                     Admittedly, there is a statement with regard to limited liability on the receipts Annexures C-5 & C-6. Undisputedly, the said statement is not signed by the complainant. More so, it is in fine prints. There is no evidence on the file that the specific attention of the complainant was drawn towards the limited liability at the time of booking the consignments. Thus, it is held that the clause with regard to limited liability would not be part of the contract, as such it will not be binding upon the complainant, so, an ordinary liability would flow in cases of deficiency in service. Reliance placed on M/s On Dot Courier and Cargo Vs. Jaspal Singh and Another, First Appeal No.157 of 2011, decided on 19.7.2011 by our own State Commission.

10.                   Now, it is established that the OPs No.1 and 2 had not delivered the consignment at the destination, thus it amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

11.                   As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs No.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.39,998/- to the complainant. OPs No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. 

12.                   This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to refund the awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization.

13.                   The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned.