Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/74

Jagdish Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Skyking Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Handa

13 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                74 of 2019

Date of Institution:     13.03.2019

Date of Decision :      13.11.2019

 

Jagdish Dass aged about 40 years son of Mahant Vaid Baldev Dass r r/o Dera Samadhan, Ferozepur Road, District Faridkot.                                                                        

...Complainant

Versus

1. Skyking Courier through its MD/Chairman, 18, Mullick Street, Bara Bazaar, Kali Godown, Kotkapura.
2. Goyal Enterprises, (Courier Service ) near under Bridge, Railway Road, Bathinda.
3. Jaswant Singh Sky King Courier under care of Goyal Enterprises (OP-2), Aara Market, Circular Road, Faridkot.
4. Sandeep Singh, Sky King Courier under care of Goyal Enterprises (OP-2), Aara Market, Circular Road, Faridkot.

                ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for  Complainant,    

                  Sh Joginder Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   Sh Ajit Singh Sekhon, Ld Counsel for  OP-3 and OP-4,

         OP-2 Exparte.

cc no. - 74 of 2019

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not sending the consignment at proper address and prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/-for harassment and Rs.11,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on10.01.2019, complainant sent medicine worth Rs.6,400/- in a parcel bearing consignment no.381316324 at Jaipur through OPs and OPs assured to deliver the same within 3 days, but said parcel containing medicines did not reach its destined place within agreed period. on 15.01.2019, patient of complainant asked him regarding said medicine and when complainant enquired from OP-3 and 4 regarding his parcel, they checked its online status and said that from 12.01.2019 to 17.01.2019, parcel of complainant remained with OPs at Jaipur and they did not deliver the same to the address of consignee. On 19.01.2019, OP-3 and OP-4 returned the said parcel to complainant saying their agency does not do door to door service. On this  complainant came home very sadly, but he was shocked to see that there is no medicine in jar which was made parcel. he immediately approached OP-3 and 4, but they refused to hear his grievance and when he made complaint regarding this to OP-1 and OP-2, they also did not do anything needful. It is submitted that

cc no. - 74 of 2019

complainant had to hire a man for sending the parcel containing medicine again to his patient. It is further submitted that OPs have clearly mentioned over their website that they provide door to door services, but all this act of OPs in not delivering the parcel of complainant to its destination amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.03.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                        In reply, OP-1 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, it is admitted by OP-1 that on 10.01.2019, complainant sent a consignment of Ayurvedic medicine vide consignment number 381316324 to one Pardeep Singh of Jaipur, he did not disclose that said Pardeep Singh was patient of complainant and moreover, at the time of booking the consignment did not declare the value of said medicine and even on request of answering OP, complainant did not told its real value and that is why, column of receipt no.381316324 meant for value left

cc no. - 74 of 2019

blank. Further averred that on 12.01.2019, employee of answering OP at Jaipur Office informed about the parcel to the addressee on mobile phone mentioned on parcel and asked him to collect the same as delivery area in Jaipur is far away from the city. Answering OP again requested addressee on 15.01.2019, 16.01.2019 and 17.01.2019 to collect the parcel, but consignee did not move forward to receive his parcel. OP-1 denied the allegation of complainant that any such assurance was given by them that parcel would be delivered within three days to the consignee’s house on 13.01.2019. Answering OP fully cooperated with complainant in tracking the said parcel and after receiving back the parcel, they returned the said parcel to complainant and it was intact and there was no pilferage on the part of answering OP. Moreover, said parcel was never packed or opened in the presence of OP-1 and if had there been any pilferage, complainant might not have taken the delivery of said parcel from them. Even as per clause 7 of terms and conditions, the liability of Skyking shall be limited to the declared value of consignment declared by consignor at the time of booking, but in present case, despite repeated requests by OP-1, complainant did not declare the value of alleged medicine and therefore, as per their terms and conditions, OP-1 is not responsible for value of said parcel containing medicine and therefore, complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.6400/-as sought by him, rather he is entitled only for freight charges of Rs.50/-that they received from him at the time of booking the consignment. All the other allegations are denied and it is reiterated that

cc no. - 74 of 2019

there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                         On receipt of the notice, OP-3 and OP-4 also filed reply wherein they took same pleadings as taken by OP-1 in their written version and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                           Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                          To controvert the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Soni Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/3 and then, he did not conclude his evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities, therefore, vide order dated 5.11.2019, evidence of OP-1 was closed by order of this Forum. Ld counsel for OP-3 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Singh Ex OP-3/1 and documents Ex OP-3/2 to Ex OP-3/3 and then closed the evidence on behalf of OP-3 and OP-4.

8                                               We have heard the counsel for complainant  and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence of complainant as well as OPs.

 

cc no. - 74 of 2019

9                                               It is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant gave a parcel containing medicine to Ops for delivering it to his patient at Jaipur and he duly received consignment number and courier receipt. Parcel was sent on 10.01.2019 and was required to be delivered on 13.01.2019 i.e within three days of sending the same but it did not reach its destination and on  19.01.2019, OP-3 and Op-4 returned the said parcel to complainant saying they do not do door to door service and when complainant opened the said parcel, he found that jar containing said medicine was totally empty and medicine from said jar was taken out by OPs. Complainant made several requests to OPs to compensate him, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-6.

10                                                  On the other hand, plea taken by OP-1 is that at the time of booking the parcel for consignment, complainant did not disclose them that it was to be delivered to his patient and despite repeated requests, complainant did not declare the value of said parcel and intentionally left the column of value blank. It is averred that they fully cooperated with complainant in tracking the said parcel and asserted that destination place was quite away from Jaipur City and they informed consignee on phone number given on parcel to collect the said parcel, but

cc no. - 74 of 2019

he did not come to collect the same. They made several calls to consignee on 15.01.2019, 16.01.2019 and 17.01.2019 with requests to collect the said parcel, but he did not come ahead to receive the said parcel and therefore, said parcel was sent back to complainant. Moreover, undelivered parcel has been returned to complainant as intact and complainant took the delivery of said parcel after duly checking the same and now, allegation of complainant that medicine from said parcel has been taken out is totally wrong and concocted one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.

11                                 Ld counsel for OP-3 and 4 also stressed mainly on the point that complainant did not declare the value of parcel on it and column of value was left blank by him and in these circumstances, they are not liable to refund Rs.6400/-as sought by him. Moreover, parcel of complainant has already been returned by them in intact position and there is no pilferage on their part and they have not tampered with said parcel. Allegation in respect of taking out the medicine from said parcel is totally baseless and false one. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

12                               Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant booked a consignment order with Ops and gave a parcel to them for being delivered at Jaipur and there is no denial to the fact that freight charges were duly paid by complainant for the same. It is also

cc no. - 74 of 2019

admitted by OPs in their written version that parcel in question did not deliver at its destined place and reached back with them. Plea taken by Ops is that on receiving the parcel undelivered, they returned the same to complainant intact. Moreover, plea and support taken by Ops that as per their terms and conditions that they do not provide door to door services has no legs to stand upon as on visiting their website, it is clearly seen that they have mentioned over there that their company provides door to door services. Moreover, terms and conditions as alleged are drafted by the Companies themselves for their own convenience and these terms and conditions are never read over and explained by the agents of the companies to the customers and these terms and conditions protect the interests only of the companies, So, we cannot rely upon this type of conditions which are unilaterally and illegally prepared by the Companies themselves for their convenience. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case and documents produced by complainant are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt.

13                                              From the above discussion and keeping in view the record placed on file, it is observed that there is trade mal practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not delivering the parcel to its destination within time. Complainant has successfully proved his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to pay Rs.6,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.3,000/-for litigation

cc no. - 74 of 2019

expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 13.11.2019

 (Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                               Member                               President