DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JALANDHAR.

                                                                         Complaint No.56 of 2021

                                                                         Date of Instt.04.02.2021

                                                                         Date of Decision: 07.09.2021

Pankaj Kumar Jain Proprietor M/s Guru Vallabh Industries, 51 Chandan Nagar, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Shree Anjani Courier Service (P) Ltd., through its Manager/Director/ Authorized Person, Regional Office-100, THAE MALL ROAD NEAR M H HOSPITAL AMBALA CANTT-133001, Harayana Phone No.0171-4000498, 89500144405.

2. Shree Anjani Courier Service (P) Ltd, through its Manager/ Director/Authorized Person, Branch Office at S-122,              Industrial Area, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

..…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:                         Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

                                    Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

                                    Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present:                     Sh. Sahil Jain, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

ORDER

Kuljit Singh (President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that OP-1 is a courier company offering door-to-door courier service in India through OP-2 and other branch offices. OP-2 serving for and on behalf of OP-1 for sending a courier parcel to Mr. Gopal Lall, Flat No.9, Saubhagya Co-OP Hsg. Society, Opp. Vyapari Bank, Bytco Point, Nashik Road. Complainant entrusted the parcel to OP-2 for carrying the same to Mr.Gopal Lall vide consignment note No.19453040971 dated 07.11.2020. Cost of parcel entrusted to OP-2 for carriage was Rs.5580/- and the said value was also declared and Original Invoice for the goods in the parcel was also given to OP-2 at the time of handling over the consignment/parcel to OP-2. At that time, the OP-2 was also informed about the urgency and delicacy of the content in the parcel. In the normal course, and as per assurance of OP-2, the said consignment should have reached to the consignee by 14.11.2020. But the said consignment has not reached to Mr. Gopal Lall so far. On enquiry from depot of OP-1, it has come to notice of complainant on 07.12.2020 that said consignment has been lost in transit and is not traceable. Complainant has also served legal notice to OPs. But OPs have not bothered to reply the said legal notice. Lastly, prayer has been made that OPs be directed to pay a total value of Rs.1,70,000/- i.e. Rs.5580/- costs of goods + Rs.400/- freight paid + Rs.14020/- loss of profit with interest @12% P.A. from 07.11.2020, till date of payment and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who failed to appear and ultimately both the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.04.2021.

3. In order to prove his respective versions, complainant produced on the file his respective evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through case file very carefully.

5. During arguments, the contention of learned counsel for the complainant is similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same. There is no dispute about booking of courier in question. It transpired from the pleading of complainant that consignment in dispute was not delivered at the address of addressee. Moreover, the OPs have failed rebut the allegation of the complaint. Hence, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the OPs. We placed reliance on III (2005) CPJ 293 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as “R.D. Gupta Vs. Sonu Courier Service”, 1 (2007) CPJ 426 of Hon’ble Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna titled as “Anil Kumar Vs. DTDC Courier”, I (1993) CPJ 133 of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi titled as “M/s Ontime express (P) Ltd Vs. Harsimron Singh Sandhu”.

6. In all the above cases, it has been held that if the consignments are delayed then the courier services are liable to pay the compensation. We also placed reliance on IV (2009) CPJ 271 of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla titled as Pavit GargVsBlazeflash Couriers Ltd &Ors., wherein the facts are similar to the case in hand and it is held that delay in delivery of letter has not been explained which is deficiency in service and the complainant is held entitled for compensation.

7. The act and conduct of complainant creates suspicion regarding value of items contained in courier consignment. The possession of the value of items of consignments not produced by complainant then he is duty bound to describe the actual value of the items at the time of dispatch the courier consignment. Both the parties are bound by terms and conditions of the courier. During arguments, learned counsel for complainant neither described this evidence nor produced any cogent evidence produced that why the complainant has not mentioned value of article instead of mentioned the value only in case file. Hence, the stand of the complainant is itself contradictory regarding courier value of Rs.5,580/-. So complainant is not entitled for refund of said relief.

8. There is no evidence produced on record that the terms and conditions of the consignment were disclosed to the complainant at the time of booking of the consignment, hence the complainant cannot be confined under the so-called terms and conditions of the courier service.

9. The complainant has proved the deficiency in service and non-delivery of his consignment. The deficiency has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

10. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are held liable to refund the courier charges received from complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay to complainant Rs.3000/- as compensation including litigation expenses.

11. Entire compliance of above said order shall be made by OPs jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

07^th of September 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)

Jaswant Singh Dhillon

(Member)