Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/750/2019

M/s Balkar Singh Key Maker - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Maruti Couriers Services Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

08 Jun 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	750 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	09.08.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	08.06.2021

 

 

 

 

M/s Balkar Singh Key Maker, Booth No.95, Janta Market, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Sh.Balkar Singh

             …..Complainant

Versus

M/s Maruti Courier Services Private Limited, Principal Office : Plot No.981, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

   ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

  Sh.Harsh Goyal, Adv. for OP

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment, is doing the work of making Keys in the name & style of ‘M/s Balkar Singh Key Maker’.  It is averred that the complainant booked a courier on 21.5.2019 containing Keys with OP and paid a sum of Rs.47/- to OP.  It is stated that at the time of booking of the courier, the complainant disclosed to the OP about the article (Keys) in the consignment and its cost, to be delivered to M/s Car Key Point, Jaipur, Rajasthan.  It is also stated that the price of the Keys which were sent to M/s Car Key Point, Jaipur, as per bill was Rs.31,996.88 (Ann.C-2) and the said amount was to be paid by the M/s Car Key Point on receipt of the said consignment. However, the said consignment was not delivered by the OP nor it has been returned.  It is pleaded that the complainant kept on contacting the OP about the fate of his consignment, but the OP neither delivered the consignment to the consignee nor settled the claim of the complainant despite sending emails (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of OP as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The OP has filed reply stating that complainant had booked one Shipment vide Docket No.19436720011021, dated 21.5.2019 with OP Franchisee Office at Chandigarh to be delivered to the consignee i.e. Car Key Point at Jaipur, Rajasthan.  It is stated that the complainant did not disclose the value of the said shipment nor produced any invoice in this regard nor got it insured being high value shipment. It is stated that certain terms & conditions were agreed upon between complainant and OP and as such have entered into an agreement for One Year vide dated 1.12.2018 and hence the terms & conditions were agreed upon and duly signed and sealed by the complainant (Ann.R-1). It is also stated that as per Clause No.8 of the agreed terms & conditions, which clearly says about the Limitation of Liability of Carriage that “Maximum Liability of the Company will not exceed ten times of Courier Charges for uninsured shipment in case of documents and five times in case of Non-Documents.  There is no insurance cover we offer and in the event of a claim or damage, we will issue a COF (Certificate of Fact) only”.   It is stated that if at the time of booking, if the complainant disclosed the value of the shipment, he would have been suggested to get it insured prior to booking, but it was not disclosed by the complainant.  It is pleaded that the complainant was approached to settle the claim as per agreed terms & conditions, as mutually agreed upon between the parties, but the complainant refused.  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OP.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record as well as written arguments of OP.

 

6]       Admittedly, the complainant sent the consignment i.e. ‘Keys’ weighing 500 grams through OP to be delivered to Car Key Point, Jaipur.  There is no dispute about non-delivery of the said consignment by the OP.  The OP is silent on the subject that how could the shipment/consignment booked by the complainant remained undelivered, whether it was lost or misplaced during the course of shipment.  In such scenario, it is clear that the complainant is entitled for the loss caused to him on account of non-delivery of the booked consignment vide which he sent Keys valuing Rs.27166/- excluding taxes having weighing 500 grams, as is evident from the Tax Invoice/Courier Receipt (Ann.C-1). 

 

7]       Now there is a debate between the parties on the issue of settlement of claim.  The perusal of the entire record reveals that it has been submitted by the OP that they on 1.12.2018 proposed quotations/rates to the complainant in order to enter into a contract for delivery of booked goods for One Year and the contract was entered into between the parties on 25.2.2019.  The terms & conditions placed on record as Ann.R-1 are the standard terms & conditions.  Although as per terms & conditions, the OP restricted its liability to the maximum of 5 times of the courier charges in case of non-documents.  We decline to accept such justification for the simple reason that the OP by virtue of entering into a contract had submitted only the quotations containing the charges for the goods to be delivered by its weight only and not mentioned any limit of the weight or the value of the goods to be got insured.  The agreement entered into between the parties clearly reveals that the OP was having full knowledge about the goods/articles to be shipped being party under the agreement.  Even in the terms & conditions, it has been mentioned under one of the clause that non-document shipment must be accompanied with Invoice/Bill for actual contents and the OP shall under obligation to collect the invoice of the non-document shipment before booking and by not doing so, it put the complainant at risk without taking any liability on its own whereas it was also under duty to deliver the shipment safely.  Since the OP has failed to discharge its duty therefore, it is held that the OP remained grossly deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant consumer.            

 

8]       From the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of Opposite Party has been been established, which certainly has caused harassment & loss to the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against OP with direction to reimburse an amount of Rs.27116/- excluding taxes being cost of the consignment. The OP is also directed to pay to the complainant a compository amount of Rs.7,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

8^th June, 2021                                                                                                                                                                 sd/-   

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER