BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Neeraj Sharma, r/o #5610, NAC Mani Majra, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]Shirdi Enterprises, SCO No.866,NAC, Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh through its Prop.

2]LEGEND Express Courier, 9, Community Centre, MayaPuri, Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi

                                  ……Opposite Parties.

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh. R.N. Sharma, Adv. for OP No.1.

OP-2 ex-parte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant on 12.02.09 had handed over to the OP-1 a packed cardboard box parcel which contained some documents alongwith a costly Crystal worth Rs.50,000/- in it. The said parcel was to be sent to his friend Dr. Vishal Upadhyaya who was residing at United Kingdom for the treatment of patient there with astrological therapy. The complainant stated that he had also disclosed to the OP-1 that it was a costly crystal. It was assured by the OP-1 that the said courier would be served at United Kingdom. The OP-1 sent the said courier through OP-2 on 14.02.09 which was in India uptill 17.02.09 and then it was dispatched from DHL facility. The complainant on 20.02.09 came to know from his friend, Dr. Vishal Upadhyaya that he had received only documents, which were packed in the new envelope and no emerald stone crystal was received by him. The complainant immediately approached the OP-1 regarding the above facts but was of no use. The contention of the complainant is that the OPs had tempered the parcel box and had delivered the documents without the said costly crystal. The matter was also reported by the complainant to the police on 21.02.09. A legal notice dated 23.02.09 and 4.03.09 was sent by the complainant to the OP but the OPs never bothered to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that neither the parcel box was tempered nor they were told by the complainant that the parcel box contained a costly crystal. They submitted that they would have flatly refused to provide the services, as according to the conditions for providing courier services; cash, jewellery, contrabands, passports, instruments etc. were not allowed to be sent by courier. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

4.             We have heard the complainant in person and Learned Counsel for the OP-1 and have also perused the record. 

5.             The contention of the complainant is that he had sent the crystal in the box through the OPs.  Annexure C-2 is the consignment slip in which the description of contents (of the parcel) is mentioned as ‘Dox’, which means documents. The complainant no where mentioned in this description that there was a crystal being sent through the courier.  There is another column in this slip regarding declared value, which had not been filled in by the complainant.  Needless to mention that the goods being sent through the courier had not been insured.  The complainant may be required to pay further amount on insurance and only in that eventuality, he could get compensation, if the documents or goods were lost or damaged.  Without paying the insurance premium, the complainant wants the value of the goods, which he would not be entitled.  Had there been the crystal sent through the parcel, the complainant would have mentioned the description of goods as crystal and would have declared the value thereof. These facts therefore prove that no such crystal was sent through that parcel.

6.             The complainant has produce Annexure C-1 to prove that he had purchased the said crystal for Rs.46,500/-. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the OPs that this document was procured subsequently because if it had been received, the same would have been shown to the courier Agency and particulars thereof would have been mentioned in the consignment slip.  Now the complainant can mention any value of the crystal to lodge the claim with the OPs to seek compensation.

7.             It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the crystal was not received by the addressee Dr. Vishal Upadhyaya. The Learned Counsel referred to Annexure C-7 and Annexure C-9, which are alleged to be the copies of the correspondence between Dr. Vishal Upadhyaya and the complainant to suggest that the parcel was not received by him in original form and had been tampered with and crystal was removed therefrom.  Neither Annexure C-7 nor Annexure C-9 is signed by Dr. Vishal Upadhyaya.  Even if the same would have been signed, it does not constitute valid evidence to decide this point on its base.  It was necessary for the complainant to produce the affidavit of Dr. Vishal Upadhyaya to prove the fact alleged by him but he has not produced the same. In the absence of crucial evidence, we cannot hold that the parcel was tampered with on the way or the crystal had been removed therefrom.

8.                    Annexure C-2 records that the liability of the OPs in case of loss of the goods would be limited to Rs.100/-. In the present case even the said loss has not been proved because as per the complainant himself the parcel had been delivered to Dr. Vishal Upadhyaya.

9.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint.  The same is accordingly dismissed.            

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.