Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/218/2015

M/s Kapoor Optical - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Trackon Courier Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Moudgil, Adv.

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	218 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	07.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	09.09.2015

 

M/s Kapoor Optical Co., Shop No.2-3, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, through its partner Anil Kapoor.

 

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]  The Trackon Courier Private Limited, C-143, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2]  M/s. Daya Shankar Enterprises, Shop No.38, First Floor, Sector 41, Badheri, U.T., Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

3]  M/s. Safilo India Private Limited, RPT House (Jaysumtj Centre), Plot No.6, Sector 24, Turbhe, Opp. Sanpada Railway Station, Navi Mumbai 400705 (Maharashtra) India.

                            ....Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Mohd.Shameem, Advocate for the appellant.

                  

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT

 

(ORAL)

 

              Counsel  for the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 166 days (as per office 167 days), stating therein, that in the office of the Counsel, on account of repairs, the file was misplaced. It appears that parties are not at fault. The delay appears to be inadvertent. Affidavit of Clerk of Sh.Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate is on record, affirming the abovesaid averment.

2.           The application is allowed and the delay stands condoned.

3.           We have heard Counsel  for the appellant, on merits.

4.           After hearing arguments of Counsel  for the appellant, we are of the opinion that order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum) is perfectly justified.

5.           In view of above, we are of the opinion that the appeal can be decided at the preliminary stage.

6.           It is case of the appellant that it had sent a parcel containing four pieces of sunglasses to respondents No.1 and 2 for delivery thereof to respondent No.3. It was not delivered. When the packet was offered for delivery, it was refused by respondent No.3 as the same was in an open and damaged condition and consignment was not accepted. Thereafter, the packet was brought back to Chandigarh and it was offered to the appellant, however, it was not  accepted because it was in a damaged condition. It was further specifically stated that in the packet, there were four pieces of sunglasses, whereas, when it was offered to the appellant, it found only 3 pieces of sunglasses, one was missing. To claim their right, the respondents sent a legal notice but nothing was done. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Forum. 

7.           Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and objected to the claim raised by the appellant. It was denied in their reply that there were four pieces of sunglasses in the packet. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of the receipt issued, when consignment was taken for delivery, the liability of the courier Company was limited upto Rs.2000/- only. The material was not insured and no special surcharge was paid. It was further stated that the number of the articles and value was not disclosed at the time when the consignment was booked for delivery. It was also stated that consignee refused to accept the material and delay was caused because repeated efforts were made to deliver the packet to respondent No.3. However, when it was finally refused, it was brought back to Chandigarh. Offer was made to the appellant to accept the material, however, it was unnecessarily refused. The material is lying in the safe custody and the respondents are ready to return it to the appellant. 

8.           In evidence, the affidavits were put on record. The Forum looking into the evidence on record came to a conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that 3 or 4 pieces of sunglasses were sent for delivery to respondent No.3. In that record, it was stated that :-

 

 “On record is Ann.C-1, which is the receipt issued by the OPs No.1 & 2 to the complainant.  The charges paid by the complainant to OPs No.1 & 2 for the consignment have not been mentioned.  Also there is no mention about the details of the article dispatched or the value of the same.  The complainant has placed on record Ann.C-9, which is a bill for about 11 sunglasses.  According to the complainant, four items from this list were dispatched to Opposite Party No.3 at Navi Mumbai.  Unfortunately, there is no proof of the number or value of the articles dispatched. The complainant has also mentioned the price of the article in the complaint as Rs.38,170/- whereas a financial loss of Rs.75000/- has been claimed along with compensation.  This financial loss of Rs.75,000/- has also not been explained.”

It was also specifically noted that value of the articles were not declared at the time when it was booked for delivery. Number of the articles contained in the packet was also nowhere mentioned.

9.           Furthermore, it was successfully explained that loss of time was caused because the consignee refused to accept the packet. After repeated efforts, when packet could not be delivered, it was brought back to Delhi on a request made by the appellant. Thereafter, material was brought to Chandigarh, it was offered to the appellant, however, the offer was rejected. The Forum rightly came to a conclusion that under the above circumstances, liability of respondents No.1 and 2 is limited to the extent, as it was mentioned in the receipt, against which, material was booked. Taking note of entire evidence, on record, it was ordered that three pieces of sunglasses be returned to the appellant. Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards loss caused and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

10.         At the time of arguments, nothing was shown to us that four pieces of sunglasses were sent for delivery in the packet.

11.         No further argument was raised.

12.         In view of the facts mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed, at the preliminary stage.

13.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                          Sd/-

September 09, 2015.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

Sd/-

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 rb