BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.100/16.
Date of instt.: 05.04.2016.
Date of Decision: 22.08.2017.
Andaz Garments through its proprietor Parveen Mittal son of Sh. Tirlok Chand Mittal, r/o Maharaja Aggarsain Chowk, near Municipal Council, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited through its Branch having Branch Office in Sikha Market, Kaithal, near Old Bus Stand, Kaithal.
- Regional Office On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited Head Office Mall Road, Lal Kurti, Ambala Cantt.
- Head Office On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited, Head Office, 61/3, Furniture Block, near Taj Mehal Furniture Shop, near HDFC Bank & S.D. Public School, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. J.B.Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.R.Nain, Advocate for the Op No.1.
Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for Ops No.2 & 3.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant availed the service of Op No.1 for consideration for sending seven parcels of readymade garments of total value of Rs.20,140/- to Goshie’s Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Sector-26, Chandigarh and the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the aforesaid parcels shall be delivered within 2 days from the date of booking. It is alleged that unfortunately, the Op No.1 did not perform its duty and did not deliver the aforesaid seven parcels to their destination. It is further alleged that the Op No.1 neither delivered the seven parcels of readymade garments to Goshie’s Apparels Pvt. Ltd. nor returned the same to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objection that the Op had handed over the goods to its Regional Office-On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd. Hab Office, Mall Road Lal Kurti, Ambala Cantt. and Head Office-On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd. Head Office 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi and both the Regional Office and Head Office are the necessary parties and thereafter, on 26.09.2016, the Op No.1-applicant moved an application for impleading the Regional Office-On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd. Hab Office, Mall Road Lal Kurti, Ambala Cantt. and Head Office-On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd., Head Office 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industril Area, New Delhi as Ops No.2 & 3. The said application was allowed vide order dt. 25.10.2016 of this forum and amended title was filed by the complainant.
3. The Ops No.2 & 3 filed the joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has agreed to restrict his claim as per terms and conditions of letter booking receipt; that the term and condition of the booking receipt are specifically printed on the consignment note, the relevant term and condition is as under:-
“The liability of On Dot for any loss or damage to the consignment in transit or for any delay in delivery of the consignment shall be strictly restricted limited to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment and Rs.1,000/- for each international consignment. Company shall not be responsible for any consequential loss or damages or compensation. No claim or complaint shall be entertained after one month from the date of consignment note”.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and Mark-C1 to Mark-C8 and closed evidence on 23.08.2016. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-R1 & Mark-R2 and closed evidence on 14.10.2016. The Ops No.2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A and closed evidence on 24.07.2017.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant availed the service of Op No.1 for consideration for sending seven parcels of readymade garments of total value of Rs.20,140/- to Goshie’s Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Sector-26, Chandigarh and the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the aforesaid parcels shall be delivered within 2 days from the date of booking. He further argued that the Op No.1 did not perform its duty and did not deliver the aforesaid seven parcels to their destination. Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted a catena of authorities cited in 2012(2) CPC page 586 (NC) titled as Air Star Express Courier Vs. Inder Medical Store & another; 2017(1) Law Herald page 565 (SC) titled as M/s. Gati Ltd. Vs. M/s. Synergetic Automation Technologies and 2012(3) CPC page 187 (Punjab State Commission) titled as On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd. Vs. Ved Store & others. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the Op No.1 had handed over the goods to its Regional Office-On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd. Hab Office, Mall Road Lal Kurti, Ambala Cantt. and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1. Ld. counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 argued that the complainant has agreed to restrict his claim as per terms and conditions of letter booking receipt. He further argued that the liability of On Dot for any loss or damage to the consignment in transit or for any delay in delivery of the consignment shall be strictly restricted limited to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment and Rs.1,000/- for each international consignment. Ld. counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 submitted authorities cited in 1997(2) CPC page 64 (SC) titled as Bharati Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier; 1996(4) SCC page 704 (SC) titled as Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express and 1994(1) CPJ page 52 (NC) titled as Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.Suresh.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant availed the service of Op No.1 for consideration for sending seven parcels of readymade garments of total value of Rs.20,140/- to Goshie’s Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Sector-26, Chandigarh, the receipts of courier services, Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 are placed on the file. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops neither delivered the above-said seven parcels to Goshie’s Apparels Pvt. Ltd. nor the said parcels were returned to the complainant. The Ops have not given satisfactory explanation regarding the loss of parcels of complainant. In the absence of satisfactory explanation would amounts to deficiency in service. To rebut the contention of Ops No.2 & 3 that the liability of On Dot for any loss or damage to the consignment in transit or for any delay in delivery of the consignment shall be strictly restricted limited to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment, if however, it is shown that the said loss took place on account of any fraudulent or willful act or default of an employee of the courier service, the complainant would be entitled to appropriate compensation from the Ops. Ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the authority of Air Star Express Courier Vs. Inder Medical Store & another (supra), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that Courier service-Loss in transit-District forum dismissed complaint but the State Commission allowed compensation of Rs.26,137/- which was actual loss suffered by the respondent/complainant-To say that compensation should not exceed Rs.100/- cannot be accepted-Evidence in support of claim of Rs.100/- was never produced before District Forum-Impugned order being well reasoned-No interference in revision is warranted-Revision dismissed.
The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case. So, in view of above-said authority as-well-as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,140/- (the cost of readymade garments). The authorities produced by ld. counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 are not applicable to the facts of present case.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.20,140/- to the complainant. No order as to costs. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its realization. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.22.08.2017. (Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
