DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. B.K. Goyal, #3151, Sector 19D, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd. (Mr. B.S. Sandhu), SCO 68-70, Sector 17/A, Basement, Chandigarh.

2.                 Fast Track Express, SCO 491-92, 1^st Floor, Sector 35/C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Ms. Babita Bisht, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Tarun Gupta, Counsel for the opposite parties.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. B.K. Goyal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only).

                    In brief, the case of the complainant is that he sent a parcel containing ladies suits worth Rs.52,860/- through opposite parties on 5.6.2012 to be delivered at Bhopal to his daughter. However, the said parcel got lost/misplaced.  When the complainant made enquiries, the opposite parties failed to provide any proper response which caused him a lot of mental and physical harassment.  In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed.

2.                           The opposite parties in their joint written statement admitted that the complainant booked a parcel with them.  However it has been denied that the said parcel contained the articles as alleged in the complaint or that the said articles valued Rs.52,860/-.  It has been averred that the complainant did not declare the value of the consignment nor the consignment was got insured. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

4.                           Admittedly, a consignment was booked by the complainant on 5.6.2012 for its delivery to his daughter at Bhopal.  It is also the admitted case of the parties that the said consignment did not reach destination and was misplaced/lost in transit.

5.                           According to the ld. Counsel for the complainant, the said consignment contained ladies suits worth Rs.52,860/- which he sent to his daughter, at Bhopal, on the occasion of birth of her son.  In support of his case the complainant has filed a copy of the courier receipt (Ex.C-1) vide which the consignment was sent to Bhopal.  Ex.C-2 is a copy of the Declaration cum performa invoice dated 5.6.2012 which shows that the total value of the suits was Rs.52,860/-.  The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his case. 

6.                           On the other hand, it has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant had not declared the value of the consignment and that the declaration cum performa invoice (Ex.C-2) is a procured document.

7.                           After analyzing Ex.C-2 we find that under the heading “c/note” it carries the same No. and date as is mentioned in the courier receipt (Ex.C-1) which proves that the articles valuing Rs.52,860/- were sent through the courier in question.  Still further, it is apparent from the courier receipt (Ex.C-1) that all the columns, except under the heading “weight”, are blank.

8.                           Faced with this situation, the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that since the complainant neither provided the particulars of the consignment nor got the same insured, therefore, their liability is limited to Rs.100/- only.  However, we do not find any merit in this argument.  If the particulars regarding the consignment were not provided by the complainant, the opposite parties should have written the same in the relevant columns but they failed to do so.  The opposite parties cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrongs.  Hence, the opposite parties are proved to be deficient in rendering proper service and the present complaint is liable to succeed.

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

i)                   To refund Rs.420/- being the amount charged for sending the consignment in question.

ii)                to pay Rs.52,860/- being the value of the articles sent through the consignment in question;

iii)              to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment

iv)              to pay Rs.7,000/- as litigations costs.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) to (iii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

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

Announced

25.4.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER