DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 152 of 03-04-2012
Decided on 16-07-2012
Sahil Gupta son of Rajinder Gupta aged about 22 years resident of Ward No.8, # 45 Street No.5 Shakti Nagar, Goniana Mandi Distt. Bathinda..
........Complainant
Versus
On Dot Courier’s & Cargo Ltd. 8/42, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015. Through its Managing Director.
On Dot Courier’s & Cargo Ltd., Branch office, Mittal Medicos, Main Chowk, Mall Road, Goniana Mandi, Distt. Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) Through its proprietor/partner/Branch Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Deepak Sehgal counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh. Sunil Kumar counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that on 18.12.2011 the complainant Sahil Gupta send computer modem of BSNL company to his friend Akash Jindal residing at B-iv/66 Ahata Ram Sahaye, Street No.2, Near Geeta Bhawan, Barnala through opposite party No.2. He paid Rs.150 as courier charges vide receipt No.AWB 620486284 dated 8.12.2011. The opposite party No.2 gave assurance to the complainant that the computer modem will be delivered within 2 days. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties have lost the parcel and till date has failed to trace it out. He approached number of times to the opposite party No.2 and inquired about the parcel but opposite party No.2 failed to explain about the parcel rather have been putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext and making lame excuses. On 1.2.2012 complainant had send legal notice to opposite parties but to no avail. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay the amount of modem alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this forum have filed their joint written statement. The opposite parties pleaded that they have already delivered the courier to the concerned person under proper receipt and admitted the fact that the complainant has sent the courier on 18.12.2011 and in the said courier, he has sent the computer modem of BSNL and has delivered the same to the person to whom it was to be delivered i.e. Akash Jindal. Thus pleading no deficiency in services on their part.
3. The parties have led their evidence to support their pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admittedly, the complainant has sent the courier through On Dot Courier. He had sent BSNL Modem and paid Rs.150/-as courier charges to the opposite parties.
6. The complainant submitted that his courier containing BSNL Modem has not reached to its destination whereas the opposite parties have pleaded that the said courier was delivered to the addressee. To support their version, they have placed on file Ex.R2, the Delivery Run Sheet of On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd, it bears signatures of someone before the name of Akash Jindal. The complainant has sent the legal notice to the opposite parties but no reply has been given to the legal notice. It is a matter of common knowledge that if the complainant’s courier had been reached at its destination, he would not have send the legal notice to the opposite parties or to approach this forum. The opposite parties have given affidavit of Ramesh Madan vide Ex.R3, the authorized person of On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd, New Delhi. Ramesh Madan has deposed in his affidavit that the courier of the complainant has already been delivered by the opposite parties to the consignee and against proper signatures on the delivery run sheet which was duly signed by the recipient after taking the delivery of the courier from the concerned employee of the opposite parties. In para No.3 Ramesh Madan has deposed that complainant booked a parcel with opposite party No.1 on 18.12.2011 but further at the time of booking of the said parcel, the complainant did not disclose to the opposite parties that there is computer modem of BSNL in the said parcel and if the complainant would have disclosed to the opposite parties about the electronic/ electric parts of the said parcel, the opposite parties have not booked the same as the opposite parties do not take any responsibility of the electronic and electric parts. The opposite party further submitted that if there is any liability then it is limited one i.e. to the extent of Rs.100/- only in case of lost of parcel which is clearly mentioned on the booking receipt which was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of booking of the parcel by the complainant with the opposite parties.
7. The reply of the opposite parties and the affidavit given by Ramesh Madan vide Ex.R3 have contradictory version. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in their reply that the complainant had sent the modem of BSNL to the consignee but Ramesh Madan in his affidavit has denied the fact that there was disclosure on the part of the complainant regarding the contents of the parcel. rather he has clearly mentioned in his affidavit that the complainant has not disclosed that the parcel contains BSNL Modem. Moreover, the opposite parties submitted that the parcel has been delivered to Akash Jindal, the addressee and has produced Ex.R2 i.e. Delivery Run Sheet and has mentioned that the delivery boy has delivered the said parcel to the addressee, Akash Jindal. But no affidavit of the delivery person has been placed on the file by the opposite parties to prove their version. Moreover, a bare perusal of this delivery run sheet shows that the name of Akash Jindal is mentioned at serial No.6 and it has been underlined, the signatures are in the form of scribbling. Nothing is mentioned that who has received the parcel on behalf of Akash Jindal. The opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence regarding the delivery of the courier at the address of Akash Jindal.
8. The opposite parties have submitted that their liability is confined to Rs.100/- only in case of loss of the courier/parcel and the terms and conditions are duly mentioned on the receipt issued to the complainant in this regard. A perusal of the receipt shows that this has not been signed by the complainant, hence not communicated to the complainant, such terms and conditions are not binding on the complainant. Moreover with regard to the limited liability of the opposite parties there is ample of law and Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, has laid down precedent in case titled Blaze flash couriers(P) Ltd Vs. V. Manish Jain, I (2010) CPJ542,
“ Contention, value of parcels not mentioned-Liability in case of damage limited to only Rs.100/--Contention rejected-Terms and conditions printed on the receipt not binding unless same signed by consumer”.
Further the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in case titled Pavit Garg Vs. Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. & ORS., (IV (2009) CPJ271,
“Contention, as per terms mentioned on envelope liability of postal authorities limited to Rs.100/- only-Contention rejected-Contents of courier receipt in very fine print, practically illegible-No signatures put by appellant on the receipt giving consent to the terms of respondents-Admittedly letter delivered after 7 days-Delay not explained by respondents-Deficiency in services proved”.
9. Therefore, in view of the what has been discussed above, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Thus, this complaint is accepted with Rs.10,000/-including the price of modem, cost and compensation. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
16-07-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
