BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.582 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 09.12.2019

      Date of Decision: 14.06.2024

Dr. Gopal Krishan Singla son of Shri Girdhari Lal Singla, resident of House no.29-FF, Saraswati Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Gati KWE Courier, Regd. Office: Gati-Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.20 Survey No.12, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084 Telangna Through its Managing Director.

2.       M/s Gati KWE Courier, Near DC Dada School, Industrial Area, Opposite P.S. Dn. No.1, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Naveen Jain, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OPs are Courier company and proclaims to be one of the reputed company in India. The OPs No.1 & 2 are responsible for the act and conduct of the company. The complainant is a prominent practicing Doctor at Shriman Hospital, Jalandhar. His son is studying in B. Tech EEE, MIT, Manipal, Bangalore. The complainant had to send branded clothes and valuable eatables to his son Ribhav Singla and on the tall claims made by the OPs, the complainant made up his mind to send the parcel to his son through the OPs. The OP proclaimed to provide home service to the complainant, as such, the employee of the OP No.2 came to the residence of the complainant in order to collect the parcel. The complainant got checked the goods from the employee of the OP No.1 and provided him a list of the goods to be transported and packed the parcel in his presence. Before packing, the complainant got checked the high branded clothes from the employee of the OP No.1 and told the entire parcel contained goods worth Rs. 70,000.00. The employee of the OP No.2 told the complainant that he would weigh the parcel and would deliver receipt for the same with the detail of charges etc. The employee of the OP No.2 came to deliver the booking receipt of the Parcel, which was dispatched on 27.7.2019 vide Receipt/Docket No.482503216 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,005.00 as charges for the said parcel. The complainant was stunned to note that in the invoice, the value of the goods was only shown as Rs.10,000.00. When the complainant questioned about this fact from the employee of the opposite party, he replied that it was just a formality and the parcel would be delivered to the addressee very soon. Some of the bills in respect of the purchases made by the complainant are in possession of the complainant. The OP No.2 told that the expected date of delivery is 5.8.2019. On 06.08.2019, the son of the complainant informed the complainant that the parcel had not reached him. The complainant approached the OP No.2 and told about non delivery of the parcel and the OP No.2 took 2-3 days more time for delivery. But as informed by the son of the complainant, the parcel has not been delivered to him till date at the given address. However, the complainant received text message from the OPs that the docket No.482503216 has been delayed and asked to call on Customer Care Number. The complainant visited the office of the OP No.2, who sought some more time with an assurance that the packet would be delivered. But till 10.8.2019, the packet could not be delivered nor the OPs sent any information to the complainant about the status of the parcel. The complainant complained the matter on Customer Car and complaint No.19284895 was registered on 10.8.2019. After 10.8.2019, the complainant made several calls to the OPs as well as on their official mobile numbers. But the efforts made by the complainant did not evoke any positive response. The complainant also sent an e-mail on 28.8.2019 regarding the non delivery of the parcel but the OPs failed to send any reply to the said e-mail. Since the parcel pertains to the loving son of the complainant and it also had certain sentimental values, as such, after leaving his job, the complainant personally visited the office of the OP No.2 to know about the status of the parcel, but the OP No.2 gave fake and evasive reply. The parcel in question owned by the complainant was a trust property in the hands of the opposite parties and was to be delivered at the destination, but the opposite parties misappropriated the same for which, the complainant reserves his right to initiate criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust by courier. The complainant hired the services of the OPs against payment. The OPs have misappropriated the valuable consignment of the complainant by mal-practice. The act of the OPs is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused a great inconvenience to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of the goods sent through courier to the tune of Rs.70,000.00 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as damages in the name of the complainant for undue harassment, mental tension and torture, great inconvenience, financial loss and complete disturbance to the complainant resulting out of unfair trade practice, negligence deficiency in service.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act as the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the respondent to file the present complaint. The respondent was only responsible to deliver the parcel of the complainant to the mentioned address at Bangalore and the same has been delivered at the given address. Thus present complaint merits dismissal qua answering respondent. Section 11(2) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 clearly prohibits institution of any complaint before the District Forum if any or all of the Opposite parties reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum unless and until permission is sought from the District Forum for the institution of complaint. Till date the complainant has not sought any permission for the institution of instant complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence the further proceedings in the instant case is bad in the eye of law. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant sent branded clothes and valuable eatables to his son Rishab Singla through courier. It is also admitted that the complainant got checked the goods from the employee of OP No.1 and provided him a list of goods to be transported and packed the parcel in his presence, but the other allegations as made in the complaint by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments filed by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                The complainant has alleged that he had to send branded clothes and valuable eatables to his son Rishab Singla, therefore on the claims made by the OPs, he decided to send the clothes and eatables to his son through courier. It has been alleged by the complainant that he got checked the goods from the employee of OP No.1 and provided him a list of goods to be transported and packed the parcel in his presence. It has further been alleged by the complainant that he told the employee of OP No.1 that the entire parcel contained goods worth Rs.70,000/- and the OP No.2 assured the complainant that he would deliver receipt of the weight and detail of charges. As per his allegations, the parcel was booked on 27.07.2019 vide receipt. The complainant paid Rs.1050/- as charges for parcel. The complainant has proved on record the receipt issued by the OP No.2, the bills showing the purchase of the clothes of Vanheusen, Blackberry, Octave and from Mochi. He has proved these bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6. He has also proved on record the statement of the account Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 to show that for the purchase of the goods, he had spent the money from his account. He has also proved on record the copy of the email dated 28 August 2019 alleging that till 28.08.2019 the packet has not been delivered. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OPs No.1 & 2.

7.                The OP has alleged that there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. It has been alleged that the complainant disclosed the value of the goods in parcel as Rs.10,000/-, which is duly mentioned in the receipt. Other allegations have been denied for want of knowledge and it has been alleged that the complainant is not entitled to any refund.

8.                Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that the receipt was issued by the OP No.2. In this receipt, the weight of the goods has been mentioned as 15 kg and Rs.1005/- were charged from the complainant by the OP. The amount of Rs.10,000- has been mentioned in Ex.C-1. In this receipt, there is no mention of the detail of the goods or any list of the goods supplied to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. However, the OP has admitted that the complainant disclosed the goods worth Rs.10,000-. The complainant has alleged that the OPs told the complainant that this mentioning of Rs.10,000/- on the receipt is just a formality and actually the clothes and goods are of Rs.70,000/- as alleged, but there is no evidence on record that the goods worth Rs.70,000- were packed and handed over to the OP for further delivery to the complainant’s  son. The complainant is well educated person and is doctor by profession. It cannot be presumed that a well educated person will believe and get the receipt of Rs.10,000- from the OP for handing over the clothes worth Rs.70,000/-. Though, the bills of Vanheusen, Blackberry, Octave and Mochi have been produced on record and even the account statement has been produced on record, but these bills nowhere support the version that these goods and branded clothes were handed over to the OP for further delivery to the son of the complainant. The complainant might have purchased the clothes from the different showrooms, but it has not been proved that these clothes were packed and handed over to the OPs. The complainant has relied upon the emails Ex.C-9. Perusal of this emails also shows that there is no reference of the fact that the clothes worth Rs.70,000/- were packed and dispatched in a parcel, through OPs No.1 and 2. It has simply been mentioned that the parcel has not yet been delivered. In the written statement, the OP has nowhere mentioned as to why the parcel has not been delivered to the son of the complainant. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has submitted that till today, the parcel has not reached the destination. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OPs. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the charges of the parcel i.e. Rs.1005/- and Rs.10,000/- i.e. value of the goods, in total Rs.11,005/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of dispatch i.e. 27.07.2019 till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj      

14.06.2023                    Member                                President