BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.38 of 2015

Date of Instt. 06.02.2015

Date of Decision :15.07.2015

Rosy Singh aged about 50 years R/o 37/101, Sunrise Apartment, Green Modal Town, Jalandhar, Punjab-144002.

..........Complainant Versus

1. The Managing Director, DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, Building No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047.

2. The Manager, DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, J.S.Enterprises, Vijay Tower, Jalandhar, Punjab-144002.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vikas Bhardwaj Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Hariqbal Singh Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a resident of 37/101, Sunrise Apartment, Green Modal Town, Jalandhar, Punjab-144002. The complainant had booked a parcel containing electronic goods at Jalandhar, Punjab to deliver it to Modinagar, U.P from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is the registered office and is engaged in the business of courier and cargo services and opposite party No.2 is its branch office located in Jalandhar. On 2.9.2014, the complainant had sent parcel containing electronic goods through opposite party No.2 bearing consignment No.Z26277139. The complainant's parcel, when it reached to Modinagar was found in a damaged condition and some of the goods were missing. The complainant immediately reported the matter to Jalandhar as well as Modinagar offices of the opposite party No.1. The complainant when asked the opposite party No.2 about the status of the missing goods, then the executive of Jalandhar branch office refused to look into this matter. On 8.9.2014 the complainant filed a complaint with opposite party No.2 but did not find any positive response from the opposite party No.2. On 20.9.2014 the complainant sent a letter dated 20.9.2014 to the opposite party to resolve the dispute, but the opposite parties did not reply the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed for refund of the value of the missing goods i.e Rs.30,000/- or directing the opposite parties to return missing goods. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint or anywhere else about the contents in the parcel before the delivery of the same to the opposite parties. Moreover, the dispute has been raised after the delivery of the parcel. The tracking detail is annexed herewith, which depicts that there is no loss of weight during the whole transaction or consignment. As per the policy of the company if the parcel is not insured by the consignor/complainant or it is not covered under the risk charge policy of the company then the company's liability is restricted to Rs.500/- only. Now in the present matter the complainant neither has adopted the risk charge policy of the company nor insured the goods, so the company is not liable for any damage or loss. The parcel has been sent through the opposite party No.2, but it is specifically denied that the electronic goods were sent through the parcel. As the letter i.e Z in the consignment No.Z26277139 is used as per the policy of company, while sending the documents by the opposite parties. Here, surprisingly the complainant is claiming that he has sent the electronic items through the opposite party No.2. The complainant has made this story only to grab the money of the company. There are contradictions in the complaint filed before this Forum and the complaint if any filed before the opposite parties. Sometimes the complainant said that the parcel was containing the electronic items and on the other hand the complainant herself is stating that the parcel was containing electronic items and other goods etc, so there seem to be a false complaint on the face of record itself. Moreover, as already depicted the complainant has not adopted the policy of the company and has not mentioned the articles in the parcel. It is important to mention here that the complainant has not provided the bill, IMEI number of the mobile etc so that the opposite parties could lodge the complaint to search out the same if the complainant is saying so truly. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2 stated that the details of the electronic goods have not been mentioned. The complaint is false. The averments regarding the parcel containing electronic goods are incorrect. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/5 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered document Ex.OP2/A and evidence of opposite party No.2 was closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

7. It is not disputed that the complainant sent a parcel through opposite party No.2. The complainant contended that when the parcel reached the destination, it was in tampered condition and one mobile was missing from it. On the other hand, learned counsels for both the opposite parties contended that parcel was delivered to the addressee in intact condition and story regarding missing mobile is after thought one. He further contended that in complaint, the complainant has no where mentioned that she sent the mobile through courier agency of opposite party No.2. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. According to the complainant, she sent the mobile alongwith Surf Excel worth Rs.500 and Namkeen to her son at Modinagar, UP, but when the parcel was received by her son it was found that same was in damaged condition and electronic goods i.e mobile was missing from it. In the complaint, the complainant has pleaded in para 1 of the complaint that she had booked the parcel containing electronic goods at Jalandhar to deliver it to Modinagar, UP, from opposite party No.2. In the complaint, the complainant has no where mentioned that she sent mobile alongwith Surf Excel, Namkeen to her son through courier agency of opposite party No.2. The complainant has produced one computerized bill Ex.C1 regarding Nokia Lumia 920(Black) and this bill is dated 16.10.2013 and is in the name of Aviraj Singh i.e son of the complainant. Although bill is dated 16.10.2013 but the parcel is alleged to have been sent on 2.9.2014. Ex.C3 is copy of notice/letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. In this notice, there is mention of Mobile, Surf Excel and Namkeen. In the notice, it is mentioned that when her son received the parcel and found that parcel was in damaged condition and electronic goods were missing and parcel was re-taped. So at one place it is alleged that electronic goods were missing and then in the notice it is stated that one mobile Lumia worth Rs.30,000/-, Surf Excel worth Rs.500/- and Namkeen were missing. It maybe mention here that in the complaint there is only mention of sending electronic goods through opposite party No.2. As per letter Ex.C3 son of the complainant received the parcel. The complainant has not filed the affidavit of her son who had received the parcel. So the affidavit and version of the complainant is hearsay and is based upon the facts told to her by her son. Ex.OP1/5 is consignment details. As per consignment details, the parcel was delivered to security guard. From the document Ex.OP1/1, it is evident that son of the complainant was residing in hostel at Modinagar, U.P. So the security guard of the hostel after receiving the parcel handed over the same to the son of the complainant. The complainant has neither filed affidavit of security guard nor of her son. The complainant is not having any personal knowledge regarding the condition of the parcel when the same was received by security guard or her son. So in absence of any affidavit of above said security guard and son of the complainant the version of the complainant is hearsay and not much value can be attached to it. The complainant has failed to lead any reliable evidence to prove that any article was missing from the parcel delivered to her son. Moreover, the parcel should not have been received by the complainant or the above said security guard if the same was in damaged or tampered condition.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.07.2015 Member Member President