BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Amrit Lal Satija S/o Late Sh.Jiwan Dass, Resident of House No.3078, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]        M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Banglore – 560647, through its Director.

2]        M/s. Vishwas Enterprises, DTDC Delivery Service, Shop No.3, Double Storey Mini Market, Near Main Market, Sector 38-
C & D, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Sh.S.P.S.Pasricha.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:        Sh.P.D. GOEL                                                           PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                    MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Kamal Satija, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Harpal Singh Taragarh, Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.A.P.S.Guliani, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                     Succinctly put, the Complainant booked a consignment containing the Pen Drive on 23.9.2011 with OP No.2 vide Receipt Ann.C-1, to be delivered to the consignee at Gurgaon.  It is averred that the said Pen Drive was having very important data and it was required to be delivered urgently not later than 25.9.2011.  However, the OP-2 failed to deliver the said consignment. The matter was taken up with OP No.2 but it ultimately returned the consignment to the complainant on 4.10.2011 without any remarks. The complainant had to send the consignment through special messenger.  It is also averred that the complainant had mentioned the complete address of the addressee/consignee on the consignment but inspite of that OP No.2 failed to deliver the consignment as promised.  Thereafter, a legal notice (Annexure C-3) followed by reminder dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure C-4) was sent to OPs claiming the loss suffered by the complainant, but the OP No.2, by sending reply dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure C-5), tried to wash off its liability on the ground of non-declaration of contents & value of the consignment, refusal to fill up declaration form and incomplete address of the addressee. Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                     OP No.1 filed reply and admitted the booking & return of the consignment to the complainant.  It is submitted that terms & conditions of booking were read over to the complainant at the time of booking the consignment, which he accepted. It is further replied that the replying OP is liable, in case of any damage to the consignment during the course of business to the extent of Rs.100/-. 

                        It is further replied that the consignment in the present complaint could not be delivered due to non-availability of address of consignee and ultimately there being no other option, the consignment was returned back to the consignor.  The legal notice of the complainant was duly replied.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                     OP No.2 also filed reply and admitted the booking of consignment, but denied that it ever promised to deliver the consignment by 25.9.2011.  It is replied that in the present case, the consignment could not be delivered due to insufficient address. It is further replied that the complainant while booking the consignment, never disclosed the contents therein or its value nor filled-up the declaration form. No loss, as alleged, was caused to the complainant, rather complainant himself is guilty of providing insufficient information. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.   

4.                     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                     We have heard the proxy Counsel for the complainant, Counsel for OP No.1 and the learned Counsel for OP No.2 and have also perused the record.

6.                     The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant booked a consignment containing the Pen Drive, having very important data on 23.9.2011 with OP No.2 vide Receipt Annexure C-1, to be delivered to the consignee at Gurgaon not later than 25.9.2011.  The OP No.2 failed to deliver the said consignment. The matter was taken up with OP No.2, who in turn, returned the consignment to the complainant on 4.10.2011 without any remarks. It was further argued that the complainant had mentioned the complete address of the consignee on the consignment but inspite of that, OP No.2 failed to deliver the consignment as promised, which amounts to deficiency in service.

7.                     The learned Counsel for OP No.1 very fairly and squarely admitted with regard to the booking & return of the consignment to the complainant.  It was argued that the terms & conditions of booking were read over to the complainant at the time of booking the consignment, which he accepted. It was further argued that in case of any damage to the consignment during the course of business, the OP No.1 is liable to the extent of Rs.100/-.  It was lastly argued that the consignment could not be delivered due to non-availability of address of consignee and ultimately it was returned back to the consignor.

8.                     The learned Counsel for OP No.2 also admitted the booking of consignment, but denied that it ever promised to deliver the consignment by 25.9.2011.  It was argued that the consignment could not be delivered due to insufficient address. It was also argued that the complainant while booking the consignment never disclosed the contents therein or its value nor filled-up the declaration form, as such, OP No.2 has not caused any loss to the complainant.

9.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant booked the consignment with OP No.2. It is also an admitted fact that the said consignment did not reach to the consignee or to its destination.

10.                   The OP No.1 has raised the plea that it is liable to the extent of Rs.100/-, as per terms and conditions of the booking.

11.                   Admittedly, there is a statement with regard to limited liability on the receipts Annexure C-1. 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.

12.                   The OPs have raised the defence that the consignment could not be delivered to the consignee due to insufficient address. It is a settled principle of law that if the consignment is not delivered to the consignee for want of insufficient address on consignment, the courier could ascertain the correct particulars from the consignor. Thus, the plea that the consignment could not be delivered to the consignee due to insufficient address is not tenable in the eyes of law, as such, it amounts to deficiency in service. The non availability of correct address of consignee is not a valid and legal ground to return back the consignment to the consignor and in that eventuality, the courier is liable for deficiency in service. Reliance placed on Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/s Universal Exports and another 2011(4) RCR (Civil)472.

13.                   As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. 

14.                   This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs 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, besides costs of litigation.

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