Haryana

Ambala

CC/205/2018

M/s S.S. Studios - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Flying King - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :    205 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           :     02.07.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :     13.10.2021.

M/s S.S.Studios through its Proprietor Sh Siddarth Jain s/o Sh.         Sanjeev Jain, Shop No. 5542-43, D.C. Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

1.       Mr. Mohan Rana C/o M/s Flying King Courier, 732, Faiz Road, near TVS Showroom, Red Light Ground Floor, Karol Bhag, New Delhi.

2.       M/s H.R Enterprises through its Proprietor Sh.Harvinder, M/s Fly King, Shop No.1, Ist Shree Radhey Complex, Science Market, Near B. D.Sr. Sec. School, Ambala Cantt, (9034315761).

                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Pushkar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 already proceeded against ex parte vide order dated    13.08.2018.

Shri Ashish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.5,790/-, along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

             

2.           The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a repudiated businessman and doing business of designer suits and sarees, for many years in Ambala Cantt under the name and style of M/s S.S. Studios. OP no.2 approached him and promised to provide excellent courier services. Complainant sent a duly packed parcel containing 8 designer suits worth of Rs.21,798/-, as per Debit note dated 24.03.2018, to M/s Charming Obsession, 4952-53, Ist floor, Opposite Town Hall, Main Road, Chandini Chowk, Delhi, through OP No.2, vide consignment no. 217922252 dated 24.03.2018, which was delivered to M/s Charming obsession on 28.03.2018. Complainant brought into the notice of the OP No.2, regarding the said incident it apologized and assured that it will never happen again. On the assurance of the OP No.2, complainant again sent a duly packed parcel containing 16 (sixteen) designer suits, worth of Rs.37, 286/- as per debit note dated 12.04.2018 to M/s Thakur Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Chandi Chowk, Delhi, through OP No.2 vide courier consignment No.150034509 dated 12.04.2018, which was delivered to M/s Thakur Apparels Pvt. Ltd. on 13.04.2014. After delivery, complainant came to know from M/s Charming obsession that they received 15 suits only and parcel was badly tampered. Complainant sent a written complaint to the OPs but they did nothing. M/s Charming Obsession and M/s Thakur Apparels Pvt. Ltd. also filed a complaint with the OP No.1, but of no use. Complainant also served a legal notice on 12.05.2018, upon OPs, but nothing was done by the OPs. By not delivering all the items contained in the parcel, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, before this Commission, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.08.2018.

4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties etc. On merits, it is stated that the alleged courier consignment no.217922252 dated 24.03.2018 was booked by OP no.2 but it is relevant to mention here that when the said parcel was brought to the office of OP no.2, for booking, it was duly packed. Neither it was packed in front of the OP no.2 nor the items contained in the parcel were shown to OP no.2 and only a receipt of already sealed packet was issued by OP no.2. The packet was sent on the same day from the booking office to the recipient address. At the time of delivery of the parcel neither recipient denied to receive the courier nor complained the delivery boy regarding torn parcel or short material. Complainant has alleged that vide consignment No. 217622252 dated 24.03.2018, he booked eight suits but the recipient received only 7 suits. He again booked a parcel with the OP No.2, vide consignment No.150034509 dated 12.04.2018 of 16 designer suits. It is pertinent to mention here that when on 24.03.2018, short delivery was made by the OPs then why he booked another parcel of 16 suits on 11.04.2018.   Prudent person will not do so. It shows that the first delivery was not short and therefore complainant again booked the parcel with the OPs. Every valuable which is being sent through courier or through transporter must be insured by the sender, as per term No.8, of the terms and conditions of the courier slip “Minimum liability 100 Rupees per consignment per Kg. (if uninsured)”. OP No.2 is not liable for the fault of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

5.           The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of Shri Siddharth Jain son of Sanjeev Jain, Shop No.5542-43, D.C.Road, Ambala Cantt, as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered document Annexure OP2/1 and written version of OP No.2 may be read as evidence of OP No.2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully as well as written arguments filed by learned counsel for the OP no.2.

7.           The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant booked a parcel containing sixteen designer suits, with the OP no.2, vide consignment no.150034509 dated 12.04.2018, the said parcel was delivered to M/s Thakur Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Chandi Chowk, Delhi on 13.04.2018. After delivery, complainant came to know that the addressee received only fifteen suits and parcel was badly tampered. He took the matter with the Ops, but it was a futile exercise.  

8.           On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP no.2, has submitted that the parcel was duly packed when it was brought to office of OP no.2. Neither it was packed in the presence of the OP no.2 nor the items contained in the parcel were shown to it.  Complainant neither provided any detailed list of the items contained in the parcel nor got insured the parcel in question. Moreover, at the time of delivery of the said parcel recipient neither denied to receive the courier nor complained to the delivery boy regarding torned parcel or short material.  No proof regarding tampering of the parcel has been placed on record by the complainant. He further submitted that as per term No.8, of the terms and conditions, Annexure OP2/1, it has specifically been mentioned that maximum liability 100 Rupees per consignment per kg. (if uninsured).

9.           From the perusal of courier consignment Note Annexure C-1, it is evident that consignment was booked on 13.04.2018, however, nothing has been mentioned in the Colum of quantity and declared value. No other document has been produced by the complainant to prove that he booked sixteen designer suits, with the OPs. Even otherwise, no proof regarding tampering of the parcel has been placed on record, by the complainant.  Taking all these facts into consideration, we hold that complainant has failed to prove his case.  The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

     Announced on: 13.10.2021.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President