DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.224 of 24-05-2013

Decided on 29-08-2013

Parvesh Kumar S/o Pritam Lal, Proprietor M/s Arora Departmental Store, SCF 34, Bharat Nagar, Shopping Complex, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd., Corporate Office: 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi 110 015, through its Managing Director.

2.Ramesh Madaan & Mr.Mukesh Madaan, Area Incharge, On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd., near Shanti Colour lab, Railway Road, Bathinda.

3.Proprietor, Sidhu Enterprises, Kamla Nehru Market, Bathinda Booking Agent of On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd.

.......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.H.S Mahal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Rajan Sharma, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present 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 the Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. Inabrator Building, Nesco Complex, Gate No.3, Western Express highway, Goregaon (East) Mumbai-400 063 has issued free vouchers for the value of Rs.50/-, Rs.30/-, Rs.25/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- to the employees of various departments against the purchase of the certain items, they used to purchase the items and handover the said vouchers while purchasing the required items from the complainant. The said vouchers were being encashed by the complainant from the said company through Balesh Chamoli, 1207-08, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajindra Place, New Delhi. The said vouchers issued by the company for Rs.20,290/- is of different value that were got encashed by the employees of the concerned departments from the complainant while purchasing the different items, were packed in the parcel/envelope by the complainant alongwith reimbursement claim form and booked the same with the opposite parties for its delivery to Balesh Chamoli, 1207-08, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi on dated 22.11.2012 vide AWB No.810751646. The complainant waited for the reimbursement of the said vouchers from the company for the reasonable time and ultimately approached the company for sending the amount against the vouchers sent by him through the opposite parties, but he was astonished to know from the company that the said parcel/envelope did not reach them. The complainant has got issued a regd. A.D/legal notice dated 25.1.2013 to the opposite parties but no reply has been given by them. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.20,090/- being the value of the said vouchers alongwith interest from 22.11.2012, cost and compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has booked one sealed parcel/envelope with the opposite party No.3 after paying Rs.20/- vide AWB No.810751646 dated 22.11.2012. All the terms and conditions mentioned on the aforesaid receipt dated 22.11.2012 were duly read over to the complainant at the time of booking of the said parcel/envelope, he accepted the same, as such the opposite parties are not liable for anything. At the time of booking the said parcel/envelope, no declaration of the alleged vouchers of parcel/envelope was made by the complainant, if there was any valuable things/vouchers in the said parcel/envelope, it is the duty of the complainant to disclose the same to the opposite parties and also got insured the said parcel/envelope from any insurance company but he did not do so. The opposite parties further pleaded that if this Forum comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, their liability is limited to a maximum of Rs.100/- per consignment for any cause for domestic & to a maximum of U.S $ 100/- for international consignment.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant has booked one sealed parcel/envelope with the opposite party No.3 after paying Rs.20/- vide AWB No.810751646 dated 22.11.2012.

6. The disputed facts are that the Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. has issued the vouchers for the value of Rs.50/-, Rs.30/-, Rs.25/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- to the employees of the various departments against the purchase of the certain items, they used to purchase the items and handover the said vouchers while purchasing the required items from the complainant. The said vouchers were to be encashed by the complainant from the said company through Balesh Chamoli, 1207-08, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi. The said vouchers issued by the company for Rs.20,290/- is of different value that were got encashed by the employees of the concerned departments from the complainant while purchasing the different items, were packed in a the parcel/envelope by the complainant alongwith reimbursement claim form and booked the same with the opposite parties for its delivery to Balesh Chamoli, 1207-08, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi on 22.11.2012 vide AWB No.810751646 but the said parcel/envelope has not been delivered to the addressee.

7. On the other hand, the opposite parties submitted that there were no vouchers in the said parcel/envelope, if those were there, the complainant was fully conversant with the terms and conditions and it was his duty to disclose the same to the opposite parties and get those items insured from any insurance company. Thus there is no liability of the opposite parties, if any liability is to be fixed by this Forum i.e. to the extent of Rs.100/- only.

8. The complainant vide Ex.C1 has sent the said parcel/envelope through the opposite party No.3 on dated 22.11.2012 to Balesh Chamoli, 1207-08, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi and has paid the consideration of Rs.20/-. Reimbursement claim form Ex.C2 shows that the complainant has sent the vouchers of Sodexo SVC Pvt. Ltd. in the said parcel/envelope. The details of these vouchers are as under:-

The said parcel/envelope containing these vouchers never reached the addressee. The opposite parties have specifically submitted that the terms and conditions were read over to the complainant at the time of booking of the said parcel/envelope, he is fully conversant with the same. If there was valuable things/vouchers in the said parcel/envelope, it is the duty of the complainant to disclose its value/contents but he has neither disclosed the value of the said vouchers nor got insured the said parcel/envelope from any insurance company, thus in such circumstances, the liability of the opposite parties is confined to Rs.100/-. As per terms and conditions of the opposite parties in case of any loss of national parcel/courier, the liability of the opposite parties is to Rs.100/- only and in case of loss of any international parcel/courier, the liability is limited to U.S $ 100/- only. In their reply, the opposite parties have mentioned nothing regarding the status of the said parcel/envelope. In their evidence, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavit Ex.OP1/1 of Ramesh Madaan, Area incharge, On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd & attorney of the company, in his affidavit Ex.OP1/1, he has deposed in para No.3 that '...Online document showing that envelope was received at Delhi'. This line has been added afterwards in the affidavit and not signed by him. Moreover the document placed on file Ex.OP1/2 shows the airway bill No.810751646 dated 25 November 2012, time:-8:27, service location:-Kirti Nagar HUB (Delhi)-011-49878888, shipment status (activity):-received from Bathinda (Pb) at operations facility. This document shows that the said parcel/envelope has reached Kirti Nagar HUB (Delhi) but nothing shows that it has reached Balesh Chamoli, 1207-08, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi, meaning thereby the said parcel/envelope has reached Kirti Nagar HUB (Delhi) but it has not been delivered to the addressee. Moreover the complainant had booked the said parcel/envelope on dated 22.11.2012 and the online transaction is of dated 25.11.2012 i.e. after 3 days from the date of booking of the said parcel/envelope, but the complainant has filed the present complaint on 24.5.2013, which shows the abovesaid parcel/envelope has not reached the addressee till date. Moreover no document has been placed on file by the opposite parties to show that the transaction was completed and the said parcel/envelope was delivered to the addressee. The overleaf of the receipt issued by the opposite party No.3 contains terms and conditions but these terms and conditions are neither signed by the complainant nor by the opposite parties. Moreover the receipt is not signed by the complainant, thus these terms and conditions of opposite parties are not binding on the complainant. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C3 to show that the value of the said vouchers that has been sent by him in the said parcel/envelope was to the tune of Rs.20,290/-. At the overleaf of the said receipt few terms and conditions are printed but this does not prove that these terms and conditions were ever conveyed to the complainant or made part of the agreement, thus these terms and conditions are not binding on the complainant. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled Blazeflash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs V. Manish Jain, I (2010) CPJ 542, wherein, it has been held:-

“....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 – Damage of Rs.9,000/- - suffered – Deficiency in services proved – Order upheld – No interference required.”

Further the reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in case titled Pavit Garg Vs Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. & Ors., IV (2009) CPJ 271, wherein it has been held:-

“....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 – Respondents directed to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation directed alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. - Order modified – Relief entitled.”

9. As discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties have failed to deliver the said parcel/envelope to its destination, thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to pay the value of the said parcel/envelope to the tune of Rs.20,290/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum since 30.11.2012 till realization.

10. The compliance of this order be done jointly and severally by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. 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

29-08-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member