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

========

Complaint  Case  No : 582 of 2011

Date of Institution :  26.09.2011

Date of  Decision   :    3.2.2012

1]  M/s Nano Biotech, SCO No.164, First Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Rakesh Ranjan Singh.

2]  Rakesh Ranjan Singh son of Sh.Rameshwar Singh, Resident of H.No. 600, Preet Colony, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar (Mohali) and also Sole Proprietor of M/s Nano Biotech, SCO No. 164, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

 ….…Complainants

V E R S U S

1]  On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited, 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Indl. Area, New Delhi – 110015.

2]  On Dot Courier & Cargo, through its Regional Manager Saurav Dixit having its Office SCO No. 68-70, Basement, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3]  M/s Kuber Enterprises, through its Sale Director – Sanjiv Garg, having its office Booth No. 21, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                  PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL        MEMBER

DR.[MRS]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Arun Jacob, Authorised Representative of Complainants.

Sh.Karan Nehra, Proxy counsel for sh.Tarun Gupta, Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.

OP No.3 already exparte.  

PER DR.[MRS]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         Succinctly put, the Complainant, who has been in the business medicine under the name & style of M/s Nano Biotech, availed the services of OPs on 21.01.2011 (Ann.C-1), by booking a parcel, containing medicines worth `91,800/- (Ann.C-2), through OP No.3, to be delivered to M/s J.K. Pharmaceuticals, Chennai. It was alleged that when the said parcel did not reach its destination, then, OP No.2 was contacted to inform.  Thereafter, it was told by him that the parcel was misplaced during transit and assured that the matter would be solved soon. But, on the contrary, OPs did nothing, rather, in this process, the Complainant had been made a shuttle cock between OP No.2 and OP No.3. The Complainant then sent a request letter dated 14.02.2011 to the OPs No.2 & 3 to refund the value of the lost parcel. When these OPs did not bother to release the claim amount, then the Complainant sent a letter to the OP No.1 also, but nobody responded and nothing positive could come out of the whole exercise. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs, seeking their version of the case.

3]       OPs No. 1 & 2 in their joint reply admitted that a parcel was booked by the Complainant. However, it was denied that the parcel contained the articles worth Rs.91,800/-. They pleaded that the said parcel was duly delivered at its destination. It further pleaded that neither the Complainant had ever contacted OP No.2 nor OP No.2, resultantly, had ever admitted that the parcel has been misplaced during transit. It was asserted that neither the Complainant had ever declared the value of the consignment nor got the consignment insured, therefore, the Complainant was not entitled for any claim as such. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

         OP-3 did not appear despite service, hence proceeded against exparte.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard Sh.Arun Jacob, Authorized Representative of the complainant and Sh.Karan Nehra, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Tarun Gupta, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record.

6]       The averment of the complainant, in this complaint, is that the parcel containing medicines worth Rs.91,800/- (Ann.C-2) was not delivered to the consignee at Chennai, to whom it was sent, through OP No.2.  Though, OP No.2, during telephonic conversation admitted the misplacement of the parcel during transit and had assured to solve the matter, but nothing could materialized, despite assurance.  The OPs did not have the courtesy to respond to the reminder in which, as a last resort, the refund value of the lost parcel was sought.  It was alleged by him that he suffered a huge loss due to the negligent attitude of the OPs, which tantamounts to unfair trade practice on their part as well. Moreover, the OPs, did not bother, rather ignored to release the claimed amount of the misplaced/lost parcel.

7]       Whereas, the OPs refuted the averment as well as denied vehemently that the disputed parcel contained the articles/medicines worth Rs.91,800/-, as has been alleged by the complainant. It was pleaded that the parcel reached the destination and rejected the plea that it was ever misplaced during transit.  They further pleaded that the bill annexed with the complaint, cannot be relied upon, as it was a forged & fabricated one. They even asked the complainant to put to strict proof, for the averment that he had suffered any losses due to OPs.

8]       After going through the facts & circumstances of the case as well as pleadings of the parties, it has been determined that, admittedly, the parcel in question was duly sent to Chennai through OPs.  Now, the dispute, as per the complaint is that the said parcel contained medicines worth Rs.91,800/-, which never reached the destination at Chennai.  The complainant has placed on record the Retail Invoice of the said articles/medicines contained therein, the disputed parcel.

9]       On the contrary, the OPs not only refuted the allegations of the complainant that the parcel was mis-placed, but also denied vehemently  that it contained medicines worth Rs.91,800/-, as it was never declared/disclosed on the said consignment invoice. The OPs further contended that the complainant did not get the consignment insured, if that was so much costly. Furthermore, the OPs pleaded that even in case of loss of the parcel, where value is not declared; the liability of the Courier company is limited to Rs.100/- only.   

10]      The Retail Invoice, dated 21.1.2011 (Annexure C-2 at Page-12), showing the value of the articles/medicines worth Rs.91,800/- as well as the Receipt of On Dot Courier (Ann.C-1 at Page-14), are cogent and reliable document, which have been placed on record by the complainant, in order to prove the factum of the case. On the contrary, the averments/contentions of the OPs, sans any reliable & cogent evidence.  Furthermore, the OPs have failed to place anything to prove that the said parcel had been delivered to the consignee at Chennai.  If, it had so happened, the OPs should have placed on the record some documentary evidence, in order to prove their stance, but they did not do so, from which it could be presumed that the parcel was never delivered to the consignee at Chennai. 

11]      Moreover, the Receipt of the Courier (Ann.C-1), has no such instructions/directions to prove their averment that there was any such terms & conditions, by way of which the consigner, was to declared the value of the consignment. More so, on perusal, it was noticed that the column of declared value as well column of consigner signature on Receipt (Ann.C-1), have been left blank by the OPs, which proves, beyond doubt, the negligent act & conduct of OPs, while performing their lawful duty towards their customers/consumers.

12]     In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that OPs No.1 to 3 have not only rendered deficient services to the complainant, but have also escaped legitimate duty towards him, by not delivering the parcel to the consignee at Chennai; which was containing articles/medicines worth Rs.91,800/-, as is proved from record. Therefore, we find lot of merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. The same is accordingly allowed.

        The OPs No.1 to 3 are, jointly & severally, directed to pay Rs.91,800/- to the complainant as the actual cost of the lost article/parcel.  They are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony & physical harassment, apart from Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

13]     This order be complied with by OPs , jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it would be jointly & severally, liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.09.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.