V DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:500 of 2010] Date of Institution :06.08.2010 Date of Decision :19.12.2011 -------------------------------------- Sh. Rajneesh Gupta, Proprietor M/s S. K. Enterprises, 639, Industrial Area, Phase-IX, Mohali (Punjab). ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, C-143, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. 2. M/s. Sambhav Enterprises, through its Proprietor, S.C.O. No.87, Ground Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Madan Guptal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Rajneesh Gupta has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to:- i) Pay a sum of Rs.1,02,006/- towards the value of goods/material along with interest @18% per annum; ii) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; iii) Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. iv) Award punitive damages which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; v) Any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he hired the services of OP No.1 through OP No.2 for delivery of the following goods to different consignees:- Docket No. | Dated | Name of Consignee | Description of goods | Value of goods (Rs.) | 166655509 | 18.11.2009 | International Tractors Ltd., Hoshiarpur. | RGRC END MIL SHANK DIA 25 MM(2) | 35,000.00 | 166655508 | 18.11.2009 | Kumar Exports, Ludhiana. | ONMG110404- MF 2015 Inserts (50) | 22,422.00 | 166655511 | 18.11.2009 | Indian Sugar & Gen. Engg. Co. Yamunanagar | 331.31-4512-31 SM30 (50Nos.) | 39,492.00 | 166655536 | 19.11.2009 | Vardhman Yarns Ltd., Ludhiana. | LOCTITE:5900 – 300 ML Cartridge:20166 RTV GASKET MAKER (2) | 5,092.00 | Total: | 1,02,006.00 |
The photocopies of the courier receipts along with respective bills have been annexed as Annexure C-1 to C-4 along with complaint. According to the complainant, the aforementioned goods were handed over to OP No.2 in sealed packets but the same did not reach their destination. The complainant immediately approached OP No.2 at Chandigarh who informed him that the parcels were in transit and would be reaching the consignees very soon. The complainant also wrote letter to OP No.1 on 09.12.2009, who in turn, informed the complainant vide its letter dated 14.04.2010 that the parcel in question were lost in transit. The complainant served a legal notice dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure C-6) upon the OPs. The same was replied vide letter dated 08.07.2010 (Annexure C-7) whereby it was informed that OPs were not liable to reimburse the full amount of loss to the complainant. As the OPs failed to compensate the complainant in response to the said legal notice, so, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, it has been admitted that four packets were booked with the OPs to be delivered at different destinations. It has been asserted that at the time of booking of the packets, neither their contents nor their value was declared by the complainant. However, it has been admitted that the bag containing the packets in question along with various other packets was lost by the employee of OPs on 16.12.2009 and a DDR to this effect bearing No.12 dated 16.12.2009 was also got registered at Police Post, 61, Chandigarh the same day. It has also been admitted by the OPs that the intimation with regard to the loss of the packet was sent to the complainant on 14.04.2010. According to the OPs, they offered to pay four times of the courier charges as per Clause IV of the terms and conditions in the courier receipt but the same was refused by the complainant. OPs have specifically denied the allegations as regards their ulterior motive or misappropriation. Thus, according to the OPs, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. So, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The averments made in the complaint stands fortified by the affidavit of the complainant whereas OPs have not filed any affidavit in supported of their pleadings in their reply. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. Admittedly, four packets were booked with the OPs to be delivered at different destinations. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the bag containing the packets in question was lost by the employee of OPs on 16.12.2009. Admittedly, the intimation with regard to the loss of the packet was sent to the complainant on 14.04.2010. 7. From the bare perusal of the courier receipts (Annexures C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4), it is proved that the complainant disclosed the contents of the packet and value of the goods at the time of booking. On each and every courier receipt, the value of particular good has been specifically mentioned. In these courier receipts, the complainant has also mentioned as regards the bills. Annexures C-1/A, C-2/A, C-3/A and C-4/A are the bills fortifying the value of the goods as mentioned in the courier receipts. So, it cannot lie in the mouth of OPs to say that they were not aware of the contents and value of the goods at the time of booking. Thus, the total loss, as per the amounts mentioned on all the four courier receipts, comes to Rs.70,516/-. 8. However, a bare perusal of the courier receipts, it is apparent that these receipts do not bear the signature of the complainant or its representative. It is further noticed that OPs have not mentioned the courier charges in any receipt, which they charged from the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not bound by the terms and conditions, as per which, in case of loss, theft, damage, mishandling and/or misuse of booked consignment, the maximum liability of the OP shall not exceed the sum equivalent to four times of Courier paid/payable charges in any case. Otherwise also, it is proved on record that the contents and value of goods booked were duly disclosed to the OPs at the time of booking the packet. 9. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not taking due care of the packet handed over to them by the complainant. So, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant the full value of the goods, as disclosed in the courier receipts at the time of booking. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OPs: - (i) to refund a sum of Rs.70,516/- to the complainant; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 11. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.90,516/- i.e. (Rs.70,516 + ?Rs.20,000) would attract an interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.06.08.2010 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 19th December, 2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.500 of 2010 Present: None. --- Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 19.12.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
