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

====

Dr.O.N.Bhargava, aged about 73 years, resident of House No.103, Sector 7, Panchkula.

                            …..Complainant

                V E R S U S

    1.  On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited, through its Managing Director, 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110015.

    2.  On Dot Couriers & Cargo Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.94-95, 2nd Floor, Cabin No.23, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

         ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL         MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Counsel for the            complainant.

           Sh.Tarun Gupta, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.      In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant engaged the services of the OPs and sent a packet containing a book titled as “Geomorphology and Landform” : Illustrations from the Himachal Himalaya”, costing Rs.8,000/- to Sh.A.K.Raina, F-2, Aashiana Apartments, GH-7, Sector 46, Faridabad, vide receipt No.261819693 dated 30.6.2010. The OPs had promised to deliver the said packet within 3 to 4 days to the addressee, but the said packet has not been delivered till date. It was stated that despite repeated telephonic requests and personal visits to the office of OPs, no action was taken by them. The complainant sent letters dated 9.7.2010 and 6.9.2010 and also sent a legal notice dated 11.10.2010 to the OPs but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

2.      OPs filed written statement and took some preliminary objections that the complainant had not declared the value of the consignment nor the consignment was got insured by the complainant. On merits, it was admitted that a parcel was booked by the complainant. It was denied that the cost of the alleged article was Rs.8,000/-. It was pleaded that the parcel was duly delivered at its destination. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.       The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant sent a packet containing a book titled as “Geomorphology and Landform” costing Rs.8,000/- to Sh.A.K.Raina, F-2 Aashiana Apartments, GH-7, Sector 46, Faridabad, vide receipt No.261819693 dated 30.6.2010 – Annexure C-1. It was further argued that the OPs had promised to deliver the said packet within 3 to 4 days to the addressee but the same has not been delivered or reached to the destination.

6.       On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the OPs raised the arguments that the complainant has not declared the value of the consignment nor the consignment was got insured by the complainant. He further argued that the parcel was duly delivered at its destination.

7.       It is not in dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the OPs and sent a parcel containing a book titled as “Geomorphology and Landform” to Sh.A.K.Raina,  F-2 Aashiana Apartments, GH-7, Sector 46, Faridabad, vide receipt No.261819693 dated 30.6.2010 – Annexure C-1.

8.       The allegation of the complainant is that the OPs have promised to deliver the said packet within 3 to 4 days which never reached to the addressee and on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the OPs stated that the parcel in question has been delivered at its destination.

9.       The OPs have not produced on record any evidence to prove that the packet in question was delivered to the addressee or it reached at its destination. Therefore, it is held without any hesitation that the plea raised by the OPs that the parcel in question had been delivered at its destination did not hold any water. Thus, it is held that the parcel in question never reached to the addressee till date.

10.      Now, it is proved on record that a parcel was booked by the complainant with the OPs vide Annexure C-1 for being sent to Sh.A.K.Raina, F-2, Aashiana Apartments, GH-7, Sector 46, Faridabad for which, the OPs have charged Rs.40/- as courier charges. It has already been held that the said parcel did not reach the addressee, despite specific assurance of the OPs that the same would be delivered at its destination within 3 to 4 days. The contention of the complainant is that the book titled as “Geomorphology and Landform” was costing Rs.8,000/- and to prove the said fact, he has placed on record Annexure C-2, the certificate, wherein, it has been recorded that the cost of the book titled as “Geomorphology and Landform” : Illustrations from the Himachal Himalaya” is Rs.8,000/-. The OPs have not produced any evidence to contradict or rebut Annexure C-2, so has failed to prove that the cost of the said book is not Rs.8,000/-.

11.      The OPs have raised the specific plea that in view of the conditions contained vide Annexure C-1, their liability was limited to Rs.100/- only. The OPs have further raised the defence that it was necessary for the complainant to declare the value of the contents of the parcel/packet and get the same insured and in its absence, he is not entitled for compensation of more than Rs.100/-. This argument is not available to the OPs as the consignment receipt Annexure C-1 was prepared by the officials of the OPs, so it was their duty to get the value of the parcel declared in the relevant/proper column which they have failed to do so. With regard to the condition of limited liability of Rs.100/-, it is a fact that there is an endorsement qua Annexure C-1 with regard to it but it is also a fact that it was never agreed by the complainant as it was not signed by him. In order to limit the liability, it was necessary that it should have been signed by him and in its absence, the unilateral condition of limiting the compensation of Rs.100/- will not be justifiable. Reliance placed on M/s On Dot Courier and Cargo Vs. Jaspal Singh and Another, First Appeal No.157 of 2011, decided on 19.7.2011 by our own State Commission.

12.      Now, it is established that the OPs had not delivered the consignment at the destination, thus it amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

13.      As a result of the above discussion, we accept the present complaint and decide the same in favour of the complainant and against the OPs. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,000/- being the price of the book in question. The OPs are further directed to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment to the tune of Rs.5500/- and litigation costs of Rs.5500/-.

14.      This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy, failing which, the OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.13,500/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization besides costs of litigation of Rs.5500/-. 

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