Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/760

Rakesh Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pal Courier Services, Barnala - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Kumar Garg

15 May 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.760 OF 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution:05.05.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision :15.05.2015

 

Rakesh Bansal S/o Sh.Tarsem Chand S/o Sh.Parkash Chand, r/o Backside Visit Hotel, House No.B-III/276, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.

                                                                                                                                                                   …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

1.       Pal Courier Services, near SBI Pakka College Road, Barnala     through its proprietor Pal alias Pali.

 

2.       Karam Chand Ex.M.C Authorized Dealer of Trackon Courier       Pvt.Ltd., Backside of State Bank of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Barnala.

 

3.       Trackon Courier Pvt.Ltd., C-143, Naraian Industrial Area, Phase-1,      New Delhi 110028 through its responsible person.

 

                                                          …..Respondents /Opposite Parties     

First Appeal against order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala

Quorum:-

 

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants                    : Sh.Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate

          For the respondents no.1&2   :   Ex-parte

          For the respondent no.3           : Sh.Hoshiar Singh, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 24.02.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Barnala, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.  

2.      The complainant Rakesh Bansal has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that OP No.2 is the proprietor/authorized dealer of the Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd i.e. OP No.3, but OP No.2 has given authority to OP No.1 to operate the courier agency at Barnala. Naresh Kumar brother of the complainant fell ill and he was admitted in Civil Hospital Barnala on 19.11.2009 and was discharged therefrom on 24.11.2009. Above Rakesh Bansal/Complainant was residing at Barnala, as his brother Naresh Kumar and his wife left some luggage of them at Barnala. The complainant sent his medical record and original matriculation certificate, middle standard certificate and 10+2 Certificate of Kanta wife of Naresh Kumar  through courier service of OP No.1 on 07.07.2010, vide receipt no.191719693 dated 07.07.2010. The complainant, while handing over the documents contained in a envelope to the opposite party no.1 , duly apprised him that envelope contains the medical record of the Naresh Kumar, which was urgently needed for his treatment to purchase the medicines. On 11.07.2010,  the complainant received a telephonic message from Naresh Kumar and duly apprised that the medical record and educational certificates have not been received by him. The complainant looked into the matter and enquired about the fate of the documents by showing receipt from OP No.2. OP No.2 asked the complainant to call on Mobile No.98141-58004, which was supplied by OP No.2. The medical record of Naresh Kuamr and educational certificates of Kanta wife of Naresh Kumar was dispatched by the complainant through courier service and was lost in the transit and had not reached the destination. The complainant has accordingly filed the complaint against the OPs praying for compensation of Rs.85,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation along with interest @ 12% p.a thereupon.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that OP No.3 is a Private Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act 1956 and carries on business of booking and delivery of commercial documents and parcels through OP No.2. OP No.2 is the authorized booking and delivery agent of OP No.3 and OP No.1 is an extension counter, being operated by OP No.2 at Barnala. It was further averred that instant complaint is devoid of any merit. The bogus amount of compensation has been claimed by the complainant without any supporting evidence thereto. As per the booking terms and conditions of the opposite parties stipulated in the booking receipt, the liability of the OP is restricted to the extent of Rs.100/- in case of packet of documents. The terms and conditions printed on the receipt are binding on the parties in the shape of agreement. Clause 7 of the agreement between the parties restrict the jurisdiction to Delhi Court exclusively. The fact that the envelope containing documents was booked at the booking counter was not disputed. It was further pleaded that consignment was routed perfectly and reached the delivery point on 08.07.2010. The movement record is maintained on the web site of the OPs, vide Annexure R-1. The delivery agent unsuccessfully tried to deliver the packet and could not deliver the same from 8^th to 10^th of July because of the difficulty in locating the addressee as the address was vague.  The consignee requested the delivery agent to hold the packet in the office and he would come and collect the same, if there was difficulty in locating the address. On 12th and 13th July, someone came to collect the packet at the office of opposite party at Ludhiana who demanded Rs.1000/- as compensation on account of failure to locate the address of consignee. He also threatened to drag the OP to Court. It was further averred even on merits that the complainant has failed to substantiate under what basis, the complainant has quantified the claim of an amount as high as Rs.1,00,000/- and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of Rakesh Bansal Ex.CW-1/A, copy of admission slip Ex.C-1, copy of OBD Slip Ex.C-2, treatment slip Ex.C-3, copy of discharge card Ex.C-4, copy of Middle Standard Certificate Ex.C-5, copy of Matriculation Certificate Ex.C-6, copy of Senior Secondary Certificate, copy of courier receipt Ex.C-7,  courier receipt Ex.C-8, original CD Ex.C-9, affidavit of Naresh Kumar Ex.CW-2/A. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Anish Bansal, Authorized Signatory of OPs Ex.RW-1, copy of status of AWB No.191719693. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Barnala, dismissed the complaint of the complainant, by virtue of order dated 24.02.2011. Dissatisfied with the order dated 24.02.2011 of the District Forum Barnala,  the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case, as OP No.1 and 2 are exparte before us in this appeal. The affidavit of Rakesh Bansal Ex.CW-1/A is also on the record in support of his pleadings. The affidavit of Naresh Kumar brother of complainant is Ex.CW-2/A on the record. Ex.C-1 is Admission Record issued by The Punjab Health Systems Corporation Barnala, Ex.C-2 is OPD Slip of Naresh Kumar, Ex.C-3 is  prescription slip, Ex.C-4 is also prescription slip of Naresh Kumar, Ex.C-5 is copy of Middle Examination Certificate of Kanta wife of Naresh Kumar, Ex.C-6 is copy of Matriculation Examination of Kanta, Ex.C-7 is copy of Senior Secondary Certificate of Kanta, Ex.C-8 is courier receipt, Ex.C-9 is envelope.

6.      OPs tendered in evidence Ex.R-1 the movement record which taken of status of AMW No.191719693, RTO 05 August 2010 with "No Service". Affidavit of Sh. Anish Bansal Authorized Signatory of Trackon Courier Ex.RW-1 is on the record.

7.      The submission of counsel for the complainant now appellant is that the prescription slip and matriculation certificate could not be delivered at the destination due to deficient service of the OP within time. The complainant had to face mental harassment and hence prayed for compensation therefor in this case. The order of the District Forum Barnala has been challenged in this appeal by counsel for complainant now appellant. On the other hand, counsel for OP contended that order of the District Forum is flawless. It was further maintained by counsel for OP that the address given on the envelope was vague and delivery boy could not locate the address for delivery. It was maintained that there is no fault on the part of the OP in this case at all. The complainant alleged in the complaint that an envelope containing the medical record of Naresh Kumar and educational certificates of Kanta, which were urgently required were sent through courier. It was contended that the medical record was required for the urgent treatment of Naresh Kumar and educational testimonials were required for the interview of Kanta his wife, which was scheduled on 11.07.2010. The emphasis of counsel for the complainant is that the envelope contained valuable record, which was misplaced due to negligent act of the OP. The District Forum observed that at the time of evidence, the counsel or the OP submitted that the envelope in the Forum and alleged that same was not accepted by the complainant unless the OP paid Rs.1000/- to him. The envelope was opened in the open Forum before District Forum below and was examined by it and found that envelope was not carrying any original medical record of Naresh Kumar  and original certificate of Kanta wife of Naresh Kumar, but only the photocopies of medical prescription slips were contained in it. The observation of the District Forum recorded to this effect carries due weightage. The District Forum has rightly found that the envelope, which was received by the complainant, contained only photocopies of prescription slips in it and actually carried no original certificate of Kanta wife of Naresh Kumar. The address of the person, who had sent the same, was written as  Rakesh Kumar General Secretary, Consumer Welfare Association (Regd. 789) BXIII/1492, St. No.2, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, New Bye Pass Road, Barnala 148101 (Punjab). The District Forum rightly observed that even if it is believed, that the envelop was sent by the complainant, at the same time, the address on the envelop of Rakesh Sharma was not crossed, rather from the envelop, it appeared that, it was one Rakesh Sharma allegedly General Secretary Consumer Welfare Association of Barnala might have sent the envelop on some address.

8.      We find that the District Forum came to the conclusion that the envelope contained copies of the prescription slip, which are already submitted by the complainant by way of affidavit. The District Forum observed that address given by the complainant is not authenticated address on the envelope. The photocopies of Ex.Z-1 to Ex.Z-6, which are part of Ex.R-2 of the envelope were examined by the District Forum. We find that observation of District Forum are not against the facts and they carry due weightages supported by evidence..

9.      Counsel for the appellant refereed to law in Mast Ram Vs. Managing Director, Shree Maruti Courier Service Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2008(3) CPJ 193 by (N.C), wherein it has been held that letter containing an application of complainant not delivered by courier service to the office of Rajasthan Public Service Commission in time. Complainant paid only usual charge instead of giving higher amount to ensure fast track delivery. Order dismissing complainant. This Commission has also held in Hanish Kumar & Others  Vs. DTDC Courier and others, reported in First Appeal No.1269 of 2011, Date of Institution : 23.08.2011, decided on 04.03.2015 that even in case of non-delivery of the envelope, the liability of the courier agency is expressly limited to Rs.100/- only, as per clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the receipt. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein.

10.    As a result of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum Barnala dated 24.02.2011, under challenge in this case, finding no deficiency on the part of the OPs and, thus,  hereby dismiss the appeal of the appellant and sequentially the complaint of the complainant  stands dismissed.

11.    The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.1500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the opposite parties/respondents in equal shares by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after  45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount, as awarded by the District Fourm, shall be paid by the complainant to the OPs within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order

12.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.05.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

13     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                 (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

 

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

May 15,  2015.                                                               

(ravi)