DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> THINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 223 of 25-08-2008<br /> Decided on : 20-01-2009 <br /> <br /> Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh R/o Ward No. 8, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.On Dot Courier and Cargo Limited, 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi 110015, through its MD/Incharge.<br /> 2.Soni Book Depot, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda, authorised Agent of On Dot Courier and Cargo Limited, through its Prop./Partner<br /> 3.On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited, C/o Domestic and International Shop No. 11, Shere Punjab Market, Gaushala Road, Patiala, through its Prop./Partner Mr. Vijay Kumar Yadav<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> Present : Sh. Neeraj Singla,Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> Sh. Rajan Sharma,Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SH.PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Surjit Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') on the averments, which may briefly be described as under ;-<br /> That complainant delivered, a parcel to opposite party No. 2, containing Toffees, worth Rs. 400/- and currency notes, worth Rs. 2100/- for delivery to Harjinder Singh, resident of House No. 101, Tari Padi Town, Patiala, as a gift for his son, on the eve of his birthday. After receiving the said parcel,at about 12.30 p.m. on 04-07-2008, opposite party No. 2 issued receipt No. 301369517, in the sum of Rs. 40/- and assured the complainant, that his parcel would, reach the addressee, latest by 05-07-2008, positively. The complainant has also told opposite party No. 2, that the Toffees are packed in parcel, of the value of Rs. 400/- in addition to currency notes, in the sum of Rs. 2100/-. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are authorised agent of, opposite party No. 1, at Bathinda and Patiala, respectively. The parcel delivered, by the complainant, to opposite party No. 2, did not reach at its destination, because of which, he could not give gift, to his, son on the eve of his birthday. On being enquired, from opposite party No. 2, about delivery of the parcel, no satisfactory response, was given to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2, informed the complainant, that his parcel has been delivered, to opposite party No. 3 at Patiala, but no satisfactory explanation, has been given by opposite party No. 3, inspite of being approached, by him. The Opposite parties, have neither delivered the parcel, to the addressee, nor they have returned, the same to the complainant. Hence the complaint, for refund of Rs. 2500/- and grant of compensation, in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and cost incurred, by the complainant, for filing the complaint, in the sum of Rs. 3300/-.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed reply, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that it is abuse of process of law and has been filed, with malafide intention, to extract money from the opposite parties; that there is no privity of contract, between the parties, to the complaint; that complainant is not 'consumer' under them within the purview of its definition, given in the 'Act', as such, complaint is not maintainable; that complainant has not declared the contents and value thereof, at the time of booking of his parcel as required, by the terms and conditions of consignment note; that liability of the opposite parties, is restricted to Rs. 100/-, in case of domestic consignment, and to the extent of US$ 100 in case of International consignment, as such, complainant is not entitled, to payment of more than Rs. 100/-. On merits, it is admitted, that complainant, has delivered, a parcel on 04-07-2008 in the office of opposite party No. 2, who is authorised, agent of opposite party No. 1 . They denied, for want of knowledge, that parcel was sent by the complainant, for birthday of is son. It is contended, that complainant, be put to strict proof, regarding contents of the parcel and value thereof. It is denied that assurance, was given to deliver the same to Harjinder Singh, within any specified period. It is denied that parcel has been misappropriated, by the opposite parties, in-connivance with each other. It is not denied, that opposite party No. 2 is also agent of opposite party No. 1. It is further denied, that complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment or has accrued financial loss, on account of non-delivery, of his parcel. It is submitted that, even if, this Forum accept the case of the complainant, liability of the opposite parties for his parcel cannot exceed Rs. 100/-. Rest of the averments mentioned in the complaint, have been denied, and prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same with costs.<br /> 3. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1 and photocopies of documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 including the copies of consignment note and notices served upon the opposite parties, before filing of the complaint and postal receipts, as a proof of delivery of registered covers, in the post office. On the other hand, learned counsel, for the opposite parties, tendered in evidence affidavit of, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Madan, Ex. R-1, and specimen copy of consignment note Ex. R-2 and closed their evidence.<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. <br /> 5. Sh. Neeraj Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant has, at the outset, submitted that the opposite parties have not denied delivery of the parcel, by the complainant and have not taken any plea, that the same has been delivered, at the destination, as such, complainant is 'consumer', qua the same under them and there is deficiency in service on their part as such, they are liable to refund the cost of Toffees and value of currency notes and to pay compensation to the complainant, for physical and mental harassment suffered by him due to non-delivery of parcel, on the eve of birthday of his son and to compensation for the costs incurred, for filing the instant complaint.<br /> 6. On the other hand, Sh. Rajan Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that complainant has not disclosed the detail of, the contents of the parcel and value thereof as required, by the terms and conditions printed, on the consignment note and he has not produced, any evidence to prove, that his parcel also contained currency notes. Learned counsel has argued that as per terms and conditions of the consignment note, currency notes cannot be sent through courier, as such, if complainant has sent, the same by concealing the said facts, from the opposite parties, then, he cannot claim any compensation. Learned counsel has further submitted, that if this Forum comes, to the conclusion, that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, regarding non-delivery of parcel, at the destination, then as per terms and conditions of consignment note, the liability of the opposite parties is restricted, to Rs. 100/- in case of domestic consignment.<br /> 7. Admittedly, complainant delivered a parcel on 04-07-2008 in the office of opposite party No. 2 for delivery to Harjinder Singh, resident of Patiala, to reach at the destination, on the eve of birthday of his son. The opposite parties have not produced on record any proof of delivery of that parcel, at the destination. As such, complainant is consumer of the opposite parties, for the said parcel and there is apparently deficiency of service on their part, for which they have no option, but to compensate the complainant.<br /> 8. As per the plea of the complainant, the parcel delivered by him to the opposite parties, contained Toffees, worth Rs. 400/- and currency notes, worth Rs. 2100/-. The complainant, has not produced any witness in proof, that he put the currency notes, in the parcel. It does not sound well to the conscience, that a person will send currency notes, through courier especially when the same can be sent, safely through negotiable instruments, like bank draft and check or through money order. Moreover, he was required, to disclose the said fact to the opposite parties, at the time of delivery of parcel in their office, but he has failed, to do so, for the reasons, best known to him. Therefore, we cannot place reliance on the affidavit of the complainant, which is self serving document, to the effect that parcel delivered by him, also contained currency notes worth Rs. 2100/-. The plea, taken by the opposite parties, regarding restriction of their liability, is also sustainable, because the consignment note, does not bear the signatures, of the complainant. In this regard, a reference may be made III(2005) CPJ 550 N. Narayanan Vs. Indu Couriers Amala Agency & Ors., wherein consignment note was not found signed by the complainant and there is no agreement, between the parties, restricting the liability of the courier, on account of which, it was held by the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, that complainant is entitled, to claim compensation alongwith the cost demanded by him. In the instant case also, there is no agreement between the parties in addition, to terms and conditions of consignment note which does not bear the signatures, of the complainant. As such, presumption cannot be drawn, against the complainant, that he was conversant with the terms and conditions, of the consignment note. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion, that no ground is made out to non-suit the complaint so far as he has demanded refund, of cost of Toffees and sought compensation for mental harassment and amount incurred by him, for filing the instant complaint. It may be out of place to mention here that complainant, has served legal notice upon the opposite parties before filing of the complaint, as evident from documents, Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8, brought on record by him. The opposite parties have not denied the receipt of the notice, but they have not bothered, to refund the cost of Toffees inspite of receipt of notice, from the complainant.<br /> 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we partly accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- to the complainant on account of cost of Toffees contained, in the parcel delivered to them and a sum of Rs. 500/- on account of physical and mental harassment and equal amount, on account of costs incurred by him, for filing of instant complaint.<br /> 10. The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of its order.<br /> 11. The copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs as per rules, on the subject.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> File be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 20-01-2009 (Pritam Singh Dhanoa)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) <br /> Member <br /> <br />