Haryana

Ambala

CC/206/2018

M/s Sailkot Sarees - 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.         :    206 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           :     02.07.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :     13.10.2021.

 

          M/s Saikot Sarees through its Proprietor-Smt. Dolly Jain w/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.4195.00, 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 Saikot Sarees. OP no.2 approached him and promised to provide excellent courier services. Complainant sent a duly packed parcel containing eight designer sarees worth of Rs.27,763.00, as per Debit note dated 11.04.2018,  to M/s Roop Lakshmi, Patil Gali Chowk Delhi, through OP No.2, vide consignment no.217928098 dated 11.04.2018, which was delivered to M/s Roop Lakshmi on 13.4.2018. After delivery, complainant came to know from M/s Roop Lakshmi that they received 7 sarees only and parcel was badly tampered. Complainant sent a written complaint to the OPs but they did nothing. Complainant also served a legal notice on 12.05.2018, upon OPs, but of no use. 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.217928098 dated 11.04.2018 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.  In complaint no. 205 of 2018, it is alleged that  on 24.03.2018 a consignment no. 217622252 was booked, which was delivered on 28.03.2018, only 7 suits were received instead of 8 suits sent by the complainant.  When on 24.03.2018 short delivery was made by OPs then complainant why booked another parcel of 8 sarees on 11.04.2018 and again a parcel of 16 designer suits on 12.04.2018. Prudent person will not do so. It shows that the delivery done on 24.03.2018, 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 Smt. Dolly Jain wife of Shri 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 the learned counsel for the OP no.2.

7.           The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant booked a parcel containing eight designer sarees, with the OP no.2, vide consignment no. 217928098 dated 11.04.2018, the said parcel was delivered to M/s Roop Lakshmi on 13.04.2018. After delivery, complainant came to know that the addressee received only seven sarees 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 08.02.2018, 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 eight designer sarees 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