BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.332 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 01.10.2020

      Date of Decision: 26.04.2024

Bhupinder Singh S/o Jaswinder Singh, H. No.146, Hardyal Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Shiv International through its Authorized persons namely          Sh. Arvind Rathod and Pardeep Kumar House No.C- 159, Basant      Avenue, Rehmanpur Road, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt-    144005, Punjab.

2.       Sh. Arvind Rathod Authorized Person, M/s Shiv International,         House No.C-159, Basant Avenue, Rehmanpur Road, Deep     Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt 144005, Punjab.

3.       Sh. Pardeep Kumar Authorized Person, M/s Shiv International,         House No.C-159, Basant Avenue, Rehmanpur Road, Deep     Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt 144005, Punjab.

4.       TNT India through its head office, TNT India, 82/1, Richmond        Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India-560025.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Smt. Harleen Kaur, Adv. & Miss Anchita, Adv. Counsels for Complainant.

                   OPs exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OPs are running a business of courier services for domestic and international package deliveries. The OPs are working as booking agents for DHL, Fedex and TNT. The complainant had sent/booked a consignment containing two paintings and one bowl, total worth amounting to Rs.25,000/- with OP to be delivered to Sh. Manminder Singh S/o Sh. Inderjit Singh RIO 712 Cedardy De BELAIR MD 21015 U.S.A. and OPs had assured complainant the timely and safe delivery of the said consignment in U.S.A. OPs had assured safe and best service with respect to the delivery of the said consignment. The OPs charged an amount of Rs.35,000/- as Freight charges from complainant vide invoice no.2016 dated 09/12/2019 keeping in view the assurances given by OPs the complainant paid the hefty amount of Rs.35,000/- so that the consignment would reach safely and in time at the delivery address. However, it was only in the month of January 2020 after a long delay that the consignment was delivered at the delivery address that too in a damaged condition with more than half of the consignment missing. It is pertinent to mention here that out of the total consignment only one painting that too in a totally broken condition was delivered by OPs. When complainant approached OPs No.1 to 3 with his grievance OPs assured him that they will compensate the loss suffered by purchasing of new painting in lieu of the painting delivered in damaged condition in the transit and by delivering the same and refund was assured for the lost items in the transit. The OPs further fleeced complainant of Rs.7500/- vide invoice no.2301 dated 18/02/2020 under the garb of getting the said painting framed. In spite of charges as mentioned supra OPs have miserably failed and have neither delivered the goods as agreed firstly at the time of booking of the initial consignment nor as per the subsequent assurances given by OPs after complainant approached in respect of failure on their part to deliver the consignment as was booked on date 09/12/2019. The OPs have failed in providing services for which the consideration has duly been paid to opposite parties by complainant amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs causing mental harassment, torture and monetary loss to complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 17.07.2020 upon the OPs No.1 to 3, but all in vain 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 amount of Rs.67,500/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but despite service all the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, all the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

3.                In order to prove his respective versions, the counsel for the complainant has produced on the file her respective evidence alongwith affidavit.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

5.                The complainant has proved on record that he engaged the OPs No.1 to 3 for domestic and international package deliveries from Jalandhar to USA. He has proved on record Ex.C-1, copy of receipt issued by the OP No.1 to show that the household goods were handed over to their representative in good condition and the OP No.1 charged Rs.35,000/- as Freight Charges from complainant. Ex.C-2 clearly shows that the value of the goods was Rs.25,000/-. The complainant has alleged that after a long delay the consignment was delivered at the delivery address that too in a damaged condition with more than half of the consignment missing and out of the total consignment only one painting that too in a totally broken condition was delivered by the OPs, which is evident from Ex.C-3 i.e. photograph of the painting in damaged condition. The complainant approached the OPs and the OPs charged Rs.7500/-, vide invoice dated 18.02.2020 under the garb of getting the said painting framed, which is evident from Ex.C-4. The complainant has proved that he suffered loss as well as harassment at the hands of the OPs. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

6.                Perusal of the record produced by the complainant further shows that out of two painting, one painting reached at his destination i.e. USA, but in broken/damaged condition and one painting and one Bowl did not reach at his destination. Perusal of Ex.C4 shows that the OPs charged Rs.7500/- under the garb of getting the said painting. The OPs charged freight charges from the complainant, but the goods did not reach the destination and the painting, which was delivered too was in damaged condition. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7.                On the other hand, the OPs have not come to contest the case. So, the version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un- challenged, even then the same is required to glance very deeply. The allegation of the complainant is supported by his own affidavit Ex.CA and supported documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.67,500/- ( Rs.35,000/- as Freight Charges + Rs.25,000/- as amount of Goods + Rs.7500/- as price of painting framed) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of booking, till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- 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.

9.                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    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

26.04.2024         Member                          Member              President