BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.159 of 2015

Date of Instt. 17.04.2015

Date of Decision :10.07.2015

Yashpal Katyal, aged about 31 years son of Satya Paul R/o 24, Shital Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

M/s Universal International Courier Service, S-183, Industrial Area, Near Ram Nagar Fatak, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.TS Dhaliwal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Opposite party exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant is a Music Director and has purchased RME Fire Face 800 from one Shalu Music, Mumbai, vide invoice No.28046 dated 18.1.2013 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/ and the complainant has sent the RME Fire Face 800 to Prem Pal Singh son of Surjit Singh R/o House No.310, Phase-XI(II), Mohali on 2.2.2015 through the courier service of the opposite party vide Airway bill No.416508 and the opposite party charged Rs.300/- for delivering said RME Fire Face 800 to Prem Pal Singh at his residence at Mohali. At the time of booking of said consignment with the opposite party, the opposite party assured the complainant that said consignment i.e RME Fire Face 800 has been delivered within time at Mohali, but till date said consignment has not been delivered. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested the official concerned to do the needful and to tell the status of the consignment sent through his courier company, but the opposite party linger on the matter with one pretext or the other. The complainant ran from pillar to post to know about the status of his consignment, but ultimately, in the mid of February 2015, the opposite party refused to intimate about the status of the consignment and further rather listening to the grievance of the complainant, threatened the complainant of dire consequences, which amounts to malpractice and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party either to deliver the consignment or to return the amount of the said consignment which is approximately Rs.1 Lac to him. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Notice of this complaint was sent to opposite party through registered post/AD but none appeared on its behalf and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. The complainant has produced invoice dated 18.1.2013 Ex.C1 regarding purchase of the RME Fire Face 800 for Rs.1 Lac. According to the complainant, he sent the said music system to one Prem Pal Singh of Mohali on 2.2.2015 through opposite party vide receipt Ex.C2 and paid Rs.300/- in cash as courier charges. According to the complainant, the opposite party has not delivered the consignment to the consignor till date. This fact is there in his affidavit Ex.CA. The complainant even served legal notice dated 3.3.2015 upon the opposite party regarding non delivery of the above said consignment. The opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. So it appears that it has nothing to say in the matter. Non delivery of consignment sent by the complainant to the consignee constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. In DHL Worldwide Express & another Vs. AGG Exports & another 2009(2) CLT 7, our own Hon'ble State Commission has held that the terms and conditions got printed by the transporter unilaterally would not absolve the transporter from their liability when they commit deficiency in service. So, the condition printed on the courier receipt Ex.C2 regarding liability to the extent Rs.100/- only is not relevant and opposite party can not be escape its liability regarding non delivery of the consignment and deficiency in service on its part. Moreover, the above said receipt is not signed by the complainant. The value of the consignment was Rs.1 Lac. So opposite party is liable either to deliver the consignment or to pay value of the consignment to the complainant.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed either to deliver the consignment to the addressee within seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order under intimation to this Forum or in the alternative to pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation to the complainant. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. In case the consignment is not delivered or in allernative amount is not paid to the complainant by the opposite party within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order then opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above awarded amount after the expiry of said period of 15 days till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.07.2015 Member Member President