Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/250/2016

Anju Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Nagra, Adv.

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	250 of 2016
Date of Institution	05.09.2016
Date of Decision	08.12.2016

Anju Gupta aged 49 years W/o Sh. Varinder Gupta R/o House No.31, NAC, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

                     ....Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.  M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Director, A-64, Nariana Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.

2^nd Address: M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. through its Zonal Sales Manager Mr. K.C. Narang, SCO No.108, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

2. Sharma Communication through its Partner/ Proprietor/Incharge, SCO No.866, Ground Floor, NAC, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.             

                          ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Harsh Nagra, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

                   Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

                      Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 21.10.2016.

                  

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.2.2016, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.192 of 2015, filed by the appellant/complainant.

2.    The facts in brief, are that, the complainant, availed services of Opposite Party No.2, the franchise of Opposite Party No.1 for sending Saree to a reputed Shop namely, “Vidhi by Sanjeela”, at New Delhi through consignment receipt dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure C-2) and specifically told Opposite Party No.2 that the worth of Saree is Rs.23,500/- and paid Rs.120/- towards the courier charges. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2 assured the complainant, that the consignment would reach the consignee within 2-3 days. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant, when she enquired from shopkeeper aforesaid, the aforesaid Shop regarding the Saree, he told that no such Saree has been received by him through the said courier and even the said Saree was not available with the said Trackon Courier i.e. the Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that subsequently the complainant made various communications to the Opposite Parties, regarding his grievance, but they failed to redress her grievance.  It was further stated that finally the complainant sent legal notice dated 20.12.2014 to the Opposite Parties, but, they did not reply the same. Therefore the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 16.06.2015.
4. The Opposite Party No.1 in its written version, admitted the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the courier company carry packets on certain terms and conditions, which are printed on the booking receipt or air way bill. It was stated that all the terms and conditions are stipulated on the reverse of the booking receipt. It was further stated that on the front page of the booking receipt itself, the consumers of the Opposite Parties are required to read the terms and conditions carefully, since the same is written in bold letters. It was further stated that in the absence of any pre-declared consignment, the Opposite Party Company is at best liable to pay, as per norms of courier industry or Rs.100/- in case of packet of documents or Rs.2000/- in case of parcels. It was further stated that as per clause 4, it has been provided that sender must indicate the actual and correct nature of goods. It was further stated that as per clause 6, in case of valuable parcels consignor should declare the value and pay guarantee charges @1% FOV, for which separate receipts are issued by Opposite Party Courier Company, in the absence of which no claim is entertained. It was further stated that though the complainant failed to fulfill any of these conditions. It was further stated that the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong doings. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
5. Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded ex-parte, by the District Forum on 16.06.2015.
6. The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.
7.       After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint.
8.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10.      The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the Forum totally ignored the material evidence while passing the impugned order. She prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
11. Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 21.10.2016.
12.        After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. 
13.       In our considered opinion, it was very clear that the appellant availed the services of the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. for sending the saree to reputed shop namely “Vidhi by Sanjeela” at New Delhi through consignment receipt dated 14.10.2014 vide Annexure C-2. The value of saree was estimated Rs.23,500/-, as is evident from the bill (Annexure C-1) and the appellant paid Rs.120/- towards the courier charges. There was an assurance by the Opposite Party No.2 that the consignment would reach the consignee within 2-3 days. However, the same did not reach her. The appellant had made various communications to the Opposite Party No.1, but they have failed to redress her grievance and failed to provide any reason, for non-delivery of the consignment. The appellant has stated that she was not given any form or any guidelines from the Opposite Party No.2, for booking of courier and thus, the appellant was not aware of any terms and conditions of the courier company. Further, the appellant has stated that the courier company could not disclose any terms and conditions, regarding booking of courier. Thus, the courier company could not take his plea that the appellant was aware of terms and conditions of booking of parcel and since the appellant did not fulfill any of these conditions, like declaration of the value of the goods sent, indicating the correct nature of goods, she is not entitled for any compensation when her parcel is lost. This plea taken by the Opposite Party No.1 prima-facie wrong in the eyes of law and not based on the principle of natural justice.
14.     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is partly accepted and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The Respondents/Opposite Parties are directed:-

1. To refund the cost of saree i.e. Rs.23,500/-.
2. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.
3. If the order is  not complied with, within the aforesaid stipulated period of 45 days, the amount mentioned above in Clause (i), shall  be payable by the respondents/ Opposite Parties alongwith interest @12% per annum,  from the date of filing the complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of cost of litigation.

 

15.    Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.    The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

08.12.2016

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                         [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/- 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                                                    (PADMA PANDEY)

                                                                                                                                                                                                 MEMBER

 Gp

 

                                STATE COMMISSION

FIRST APPEAL No.250 of 2016

(Anju Gupta Vs. M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Harsh Nagra, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 21.10.2016.

                 

 

Dated    the   8^th  day of  December, 2016

               

            Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 171 days (as per office report 158 days) has been filed. For the reasons explained in the application and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid, is condoned.

Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs and the order passed by the District Forum has been set aside.

 

   Sd/-                        Sd/-                                      Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Gp