Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/864/2017

Md. Firoz Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

05 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/864/2017
Date of Institution	:	14/12/2017
Date of Decision	:	05/11/2018

 

Md. Firoz Khan S/o Late Md. Samid Khan, R/o H.No. 203, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1)     The Trackon Couriers Private Limited, Regional Office – Plot No.120, Phase-I, Indl. Area, Near Hommtel Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory/Regional Manager.

2)     The Trackon Couriers Private Limited, Corporate Head Office: A-64, Naraina Indl. Area, Phase-I, Near P.V.R., Naraina, New Delhi – 110028, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM        :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that on 02.11.2017 the Complainant hired the services of Opposite Parties for sending a packet of Clothes worth Rs.10,431/- to the daughter of one of his relatives at  Bhagalpur (Bihar), on her marriage scheduled to be held on 04.11.2017, vide courtier receipt Annexure C-2. However, the said packet/article was not delivered by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties and also filed online Complaint to its Customer Care through e-mail, but of no avail. The courier packet was neither delivered to the addressee nor the same was returned back to the Complainant. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that as per the terms & conditions contained in the courier receipt, an option was given to the Complainant to declare the value and pay 1% F.O.V. charges in order to secure the packet. However, neither the value of the packet was declared nor were proportionate charges paid at the time of booking of the packet. Hence, no liability, except for the one specifically undertaken, (limited liability) can be fastened upon the Opposite Parties. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the reply and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
7.         It is evident from Receipt Annexure C-2 that one consignment was sent through the Opposite Parties to Hakim Amir Hassan Lane, Tatarpur, District Bhagalpur (Bihar) on 02.11.2017. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Clothes worth Rs.10,431/- sent vide Annexure C-2 were never delivered by the Opposite Parties to the addressee. Since the consignment was meant for the Bride and Bride Groom on their marriage scheduled to be held on 04.11.2017, the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Parties by every possible means, but all the efforts of the Complainant failed to fructify.
8.         Per contra, Opposite Parties admitted that the subject consignment had been lost and for this loss, they offered, as per the terms & conditions, a sum of Rs.2,000/- being their limited liability.
9.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments. We feel that in the instant case, the circumstances point out that the parcel containing Clothes sent by the Complainant, was not delivered to the consignee, due to negligent act or default of the official/ officials of the Opposite Parties. Admittedly, the required charges to send the consignment in question to its relative were paid by the Complainant, but the parcel in question could not reach its destination. Thus, it was a fit case for holding a proper inquiry and to fix the responsibility of the delinquent, but instead of doing so, the Opposite Parties are taking shelter of their terms & conditions to fix their liability up to Rs.2,000/- only. Needless to mention here that Opposite Parties have not produced any kind of report on record, according to which they have made any report of holding any kind of inquiry about the lost consignment.
10.         Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that no liability, except for the one specifically undertaken (limited liability) of Rs.2,000/- can be fastened upon them. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, but we are not impressed with the same. Pertinently, the consignment note is not signed by the Complainant and the conditions mentioned thereon are of a small print, which do not appear to have been explained to the Complainant. There is thus clear deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as the consignment was not delivered to the addressee. But the fact remains that there was deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant needs to be adequately compensated. Otherwise also, in view of judgments in the cases of Blue Dart Express Limited Vs. Stephen Livera (R.P. No.393 of 1997 (NC) decided on 14.12.2001) and Blaze Flash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohit J. Poladiya & Anr.-I(2008) CPJ 452 (NC), it is the liability of the Opposite Parties to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him by misplacing the parcel.  The Complainant has aptly proved on record the factum of purchase of the clothes vide Annexure C-1, which were lost by the Opposite Parties, therefore, to our mind, it would be in the fitness of things to order the Opposite Parties to indemnify the Complainant the loss caused to him on account of their casual, non-responsive and deficient services.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed against Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

 

[a]    To pay an amount of Rs.10,431/- to the Complainant;

[b]     To refund Rs.300/- as the courier service charges to the Complainant.

[c]     To pay Rs.7,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[d]    To pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] to [c] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-, from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid. 
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-		Sd/-
05/11/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member		President
“Dutt”