BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.178 of 2018.
Date of institution: 26.06.2018.
Date of decision:20.06.2019.
Narender Huria S/o Ram Parkash R/o H.No.1382, Hari Bagh Colony Panipat, Proprietor of Reobok Counter, Royal World, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
Professional Courier Network Ltd. Mato Road, near Utsav Garden, Gurgaon-122001.
….Respondent.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Naranjan Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant had sent 8 pairs of shoes through the courier agency of Op on 29.09.2017 to the ESS GEE TRENZ, Bahadurgarh i.e. a proprietorship which runs the business of sale and purchase of shoes in the above-said name and style. The complainant handed over the above-said articles to the agent of Op after giving the correct and exact address to whom the delivery was given but the Op could not handed over the above-said articles at the proper address and place and in fact, the Op had sent the above-said articles of the complainant to the wrong person at the address and as such, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant also sent legal notice dt. 17.02.2018 to the Op to pay Rs.30,000/- as shoes price but the Op did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the office of Op is situated at Gurgaon, so, only Gurgaon Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has agreed to restrict his claim in case of any delay in delivering the parcel to the sum of Rs.100/-. So, the liability of Op for any loss or damages to the consignment in transit or for any delay in delivery of consignment shall be strictly restricted to Rs.100/- for each domestic consignment and Rs.1000/- each for international consignment, so the answering Op shall not be liable 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 Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1, Mark-C1 to Mark-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant had sent 8 pairs of shoes through the courier agency of Op on 29.09.2017 to the ESS GEE TRENZ, Bahadurgarh. The dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, the said articles were not reached to the Op. The grievance of the complainant is that the said articles were given to wrong person.
We have perused the case file and on perusal of status enquiry made on December 28, 2017 Mark-C1, it is mentioned in the column of status “DELIVERED”. The Op has specifically mentioned in the reply that no claim or complaint shall be entertained after one month from the date of consignment note and the Op does not keep record pertaining to proof of delivery after expiry of said period as per terms and conditions of company. During the course of arguments, the Op has drawn our attention that the complainant has deliberately not produced the back of the receipt on which the terms and conditions are printed. This Forum has directed the complainant to place on record the original receipt and terms and conditions which are printed on the back-side of receipt but the complainant has failed to place the same. To decide the controversy and to ascertain that what were the terms and conditions of courier company which are printed on the back-side of receipt, the Op was directed to produce on record any receipt and the same was produced by the Op. We have perused the said terms and conditions of the Op-company, wherein the condition No.15 mentioned on the reverse side of receipt depicts as under:-
“15. P.O.D. can be made available under request and such request must be made within thirty days of the dispatch of the consignment. No claim may be made against the outside of that time limit”.
So, in view of said condition No.15 of company, it is clear that the Op does not keep record pertaining to proof of delivery after expiry of thirty days of the dispatch of the consignment. But the complainant has failed to rebut the said terms and conditions, so we presume that such type of terms and conditions generally printed on the back of the receipt. Therefore, we do not find any lapse on the part of Op. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:20.06.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
