Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/104/2015

Sh. B. Banerjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

On-dot Courier and Cargo Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar Bawa

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/104/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16/02/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	22/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

B. Banerjee son of Sh. Ajit Kumar Banerjee, presently working as Section Officer (Finance), Navodya Vidalaya Samiti, Bays No.26-27, Sector 31, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   On dot Courier & Cargo Limited, Head Office 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi, through its authorized representative.

 

2.   M/s On dot Courier & Cargo Limited, Plot No.73, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh–160002, through its Signatory.

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Anish Gautam, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant sent a consignment, containing some clothes worth Rs.4000-5000 approx. to his native place at West Bengal, on 1.8.2014, through Opposite Parties vide Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that the said consignment was to reach the consignee within 4-5 days. However, when the said consignment did not reach the consignee, within the assured period, the Complainant, besides making enquiries from the Opposite Parties, also wrote a Complaint dated 19.8.2014 (Annexure C-3), followed by Complaints dated 22.9.2014 and 13.10.2014 (Annexure C-4 & C-5), for tracking the consignment in question and for its delivery at the given address, but all in vain. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainant did not disclose the material lying in the consignment. The consignment was dispatched from Chandigarh on 1.8.2014 and the same reached Kolkata (West Bengal) on 4.8.2014 and thereafter, forwarded to Somnath Houghly (WB) for delivery on the same day. Thus there was no chance of non-delivery of said consignment and the Complainant has filed a false Complaint on the basis of wrong facts. It has been asserted that as per terms & conditions mentioned on the consignment note, the Opposite Parties have specifically limited its liability to a maximum of Rs.100/- per consignment for any loss to the consignment within India (Domestic). Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that he sent a consignment, through Opposite Parties, on 1.8.2014, vide Annexure C-1. The main grouse of the Complainant is that despite various Complaints and inquiries, the consignment was not delivered to the consignee. Annexure C-2 is the shipment tracking statement of the consignment in question, according to which the consignment was sent from Chandigarh on 1.8.2014, which reached Kolkata (West Bengal) on 4.8.2014 and further it was forwarded to its destination at Somnath Houghly (West Bengal) on that very day i.e. 4.8.2014. Annexure C-3 to C-5 are the various Complaints made by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties regarding the status of the parcel in question.

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that it has not been disclosed by the Complainant that what material was lying in the consignment and there is no chance of non-delivery of the consignment. Further, it has been urged that as per terms & conditions mentioned on the consignment note, the liability of Opposite Parties is fixed to a maximum of Rs.100/- only in case of loss within India.

 

9.     We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments. We feel that in the instant case, the circumstances point out that the parcel containing Clothes sent by the Complainant, was not delivered to the consignee, due to negligent act or default of the official/ officials of the Opposite Parties. Admittedly, the required charges to send the consignment in question to its relative were paid by the Complainant, but the parcel in question could not reach its destination. It was a fit case for holding a proper inquiry and to fix the responsibility of the delinquent, but instead of doing so, the Opposite Parties are taking shelter of their terms & conditions to fix their liability up to Rs.100/- only. Opposite Parties have not produced any kind of report on record, according to which the consignment was safely delivered to the consignee as per their contention, nor they have made any report of holding any kind of inquiry about the lost parcel.

 

10.     Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that the Opposite Parties are liable only to the extent as per the terms & conditions mentioned on the consignment note i.e. Rs.100/-. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, but we are not impressed with the same. Pertinently, the consignment note is not signed by the Complainant and the conditions mentioned thereon are of a small print, which do not appear to have been explained to the Complainant. There is thus clear deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as the consignment was not delivered to the addressee. As to what the consignment contained there is no evidence. But the fact remains that there was deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant needs to be adequately compensated. Otherwise also, in view of judgments in the cases of Blue Dart Express Limited Vs. Stephen Livera (R.P. No.393 of 1997 (NC) decided on 14.12.2001) and Blaze Flash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohit J. Poladiya & Anr.-I(2008) CPJ 452 (NC), it is the liability of the Opposite Parties to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him by misplacing the parcel.

 

11.     For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[b] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

12.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

13.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

22^nd September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER