Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/331/2019

Prem Lata - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar Adv.

27 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	331/2019
Date of Institution	:	17.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	27.01.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

Prem Lata, Proprietor of M/s Ketan Coding Systems r/o H.No.110-A, HIG Housing Board Colony, Kalka.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Trackon Couriers Private Ltd., Booth No.65, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Trackon Couriers Private Ltd., A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028 through its Managing Director.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant
	None for the OPs.

      

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  she is running a firm under the  name and style of M/s Ketan Coding Systems at Solan to earn her livelihood.  She purchased a CNC Controller from M/s V & V Enterprises, Mumbai for a sum of Rs.25,500/- vide invoice dated 21.01.2017 (Annexure C-1). Due to some problem, she sent the above said controller having weight of 3 kg for its repairs to M/s RPPS Engg. Works, Mumbai through OP No.1 by courier and paid a sum of Rs.420/- vide receipt dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure C-2).  It has further been averred that while booking the courier, she informed OP No.1 that in the courier box, she was sending CNC Controller to M/s RPPS Engg. Works, Mumbai and accordingly while booking the courier, she obtained the signatures of OP No.1 on the invoice of CNC Controller (Annexure C-3).   The said box was delivered to the authorized representative of M/s RPPS Engg. Works, Mumbai and when the box was opened then the proprietor of M/s RPPS Engg. Works, Mumbai was shocked to see that CNC controller was not in the courier box and he immediately send the pictures of the box to the complainant on whatsapp number (Annexure C-4).  Besides this, he also called the local office of the OPs and intimated about the whole incident. The OPs informed that whatever they have received, they delivered the same to M/s RPPS Engg. Works, Mumbai.  They further directed her to contact the OP No.1 at Chandigarh for redressal of her grievances. Accordingly, the complainant contacted OP No.1 to know about the delivery of the CNC Controller but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or another. It has further been averred that she also wrote a letter dated 13.03.2019 to OP No.1 to deliver the CNC Controller but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.     
2.         In its written statement, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that the complaint has been filed to harass and make illegal gains.  It has further been submitted that the allegation of the complainant regarding delivery of the consignment without the product inside the box is without any supporting evidence.   It has further been submitted that  the consignment booked was duly received by the consignee in a sealed condition at Mumbai on 02.02.2019 with signatures as is evident from the proof of delivery i.e. Delivery Run Sheet dated 02.02.2019 (Annexure R-1), without any protest or objection whatsoever.  It has further been submitted that the consignment weighed 3 kgs. at the time of booking, therefore, it was not believed that the empty packet was delivered and it was not even noticed the clear receipt on DRS is sufficient evidence to prove that the packet was delivered in sealed condition.  It has further been submitted that the courier company had specifically  limited its liability to Rs.2000/- for a parcel and Rs.100/- for a packet of documents, if not covered by special risk surcharge.  It has further been submitted that it was specifically mentioned on the face of the receipt that for personal and valuable items the customer should use express service or prime track which comes with insurance for reimbursement of the declared value at slightly higher charges, akin to what a customer pays for ordinary post, which entails no guarantee/liability and registered post. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. 
4.         We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         It is an admitted fact that the complainant had availed the services of the OPs for sending the consignment in question to the consignee at Mumbai by paying a sum of Rs.420/- vide courier receipt dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure C-1).  The contention of the Counsel for the complainant is that the courier box was delivered to the authorized representative of the M/s RPPS Engg. Works, Mumbai and when the same was opened by the proprietor of M/s RPPS Engg. Works, Mumbai, it was found to be empty and he immediately sent the pictures of the box to the complainant on her whatapps number and also made a complaint to the OPs.  However, this submission of the complainant is rebutted by the OPs by placing on record a delivery run sheet (DRS) dated 02.02.2019 that the said consignment was received by the consignee in a sealed condition at Mumbai on 02.02.2019 with signatures without raising any protest whatsoever. Admittedly, the weight of the consignment in question was 3 kgs. and as such it is unbelievable that the empty packet was delivered/received by the consignee without making any remarks upon the delivery run sheet. Moreover, the consignment in question was delivered to the consignee at Mumbai on 02.02.2019 and the complaint, in this regard, was made to the OPs on 13.03.2019 i.e. after 40 days. Had the consignment was empty then it is not understood as to why the consignee/complainant preferred to keep salience for such a long period and made the complaint to the OPs on 13.03.2019.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story to grab the money from the OPs.  Thus, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
Announced	(B.M.SHARMA)	[RAJAN DEWAN]
27.01.2021	MEMBER	PRESIDENT