BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:131 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 03.05.2016.
Date of Decision: 06.01.2017.
Smt.Umesh Kakker wife of Vinod Kakkar resident of 28-A, Model Tohan Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
Complainant
Versus
1.Sunil Kumar Chawla, authorized agent Trackon Couriers Pvt. Limited Central Bank Wali Gali, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
2.Trackon Couriers Pvt. Limited A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1 New Delhi-110028 through its Managing Director.
Opposite parties
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: Shri Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Argued by: Sh. Jitender Thakker, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Rai, Manager for opposite parties.
ORDER:
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. On 22.08.2015 the complainant had sent two shirts, two packets of dry fruits, one packet chocolate and 6 Rakhis (having value of Rs.5700/-) to his son Akash Kumar at Varanasi on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan through courier and in lieu thereof OP No.1 who was working under the control of OP No.2 had charged Rs.120/- but the said courier had not reached to its destination. The complaint wrote a letter to OP No.2 on 07.09.2015 and also sent an email dated 21.02.2016 and requested to make the payment being the value of items sent through courier but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence the complainant has tendered her affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C7.
3 Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply wherein it has been submitted that as per Clause 3 Sender must indicate the actual and correct nature of goods and as per Clause 6 it was mandatory that in case of valuable parcel consignor should declare the value and pay guarantee charges @ 1 % FOV against separate receipts and in the absence thereof the claim is not maintainable in case of theft or loss etc. It has been further submitted that the consignment was booked in the ordinary way by paying Rs.120/- as per weight without any declaration about the material sent through said consignment dated 22.08.2015. Further, the said consignment got lost during transit between Fatehabad and Varanasi due to unforeseen circumstances which is beyond the control of opposite parties and the said consignment could not be traced out despite many efforts. The complainant had been intimated regarding this besides offer to get four times courier charges and the opposite parties are still ready and willing to pay the same as per the terms and conditions of the policy. With these submissions, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for. The OPs have placed on record affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar.
4. Arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant have been heard and the written submissions made by the opposite parties have been perused besides other documents.
5. It is not disputed that the complainant had booked a courier on 22.08.2015 from Fatehabad to Varanasi and regarding this Rs.120/- had been charged by the OPs as is evident through Annexure C2. The complainant has come with a plea that the courier did not reach to its destination and due to this the purpose of sending the courier was not fulfilled. Now the question arises as to whether there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Annexure C1 in which she has sworn all the averments as pleaded in the complaint. Her plea that the consignment was containing articles having value of Rs.5700/- is also supported by documents Annexure C5 and Annexure C6 (bills of the articles sent by her in the said consignment). The plea taken by the complainant that the OPs have neither delivered the courier to the addressee nor returned the consignment to the complainant is admitted because in the reply the OPs have admitted that during transit from Fatehabad to Varanasi the said consignment got lost. Since there was privity of contract between the parties, therefore, the complainant cannot be left to suffer loss on account of defieincy on account of OPs and in this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Rana Document Centre V. Pawan Kumar Goyal I (2012) 29 wherein Hon’ble Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that Courier-Non delivery of letter- Deficiency in service-Unfair Trade Practice-Complaint allowed and compensation granted-Hence, present appeal-Undisputedly, letter booked was neither received by addressee nor returned to the complainant- There was privity of contract between complainant and appellant-complainant could not suffer for lapse of appellant-On account of non receipt of letter to his sister before day of Raksha Bandhan, complainant suffered mental, physical and emotional harassment-Deficiency in service on part of appellant proved-Compensation rightly granted-Impugned order upheld. The plea taken by the OPs that they are ready to pay four times of the charges taken by them at the time of booking of the consignment as per terms and conditions on account of loss of consignment because the complainant neither had declared the value of the articles nor had paid the guarantee charges @ 1 % FOV is not sustainable because it is admitted fact that the charges qua the consignment had been obtained as per weight, therefore, at this stage the OPs cannot raise this plea. Moreso, had the OPs had any question/doubt at the time of booking of the consignment then they could have asked the complainant to declare the value of the articles. There is also nothing on the file to show that the terms and conditions on which the OPs are trying to settle the claim of the complainant by paying four times of the courier charges, have been supplied to the complainant because on the courier receipt (Annexure C2) the column of “Sender’s signature” has been left blank, therefore, we have no hitch to say that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the courier as the same were not supplied or communicated to her at the time of booking of the said consignment, therefore, this plea is rejected.
5. In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the law laid down in Rana Document Centre V. Pawan Kumar Goyal (supra) we are of the opinion that the act and conduct on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service, therefore, we allow the present complaint directing the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5700/- being value of the articles contained in the consignment booked by the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum Rs.1000/- as compensation, mental agony and cost of litigation. Order of this forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.5700/- will carry interest @ 9 % per annum till realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM
Dt.06.01.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President (Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
