Punjab

Sangrur

CC/353/2019

Taran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trackon Courier Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Preetinder Jeet Kaur

09 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                             

                                                Complaint No.  353

                                                Instituted on:    16.07.2019

                                                Decided on:       09.01.2024

 

Taran Singh (Advocate) son of Sh. Harjit Singh, resident of # 569, Street No.4, Mubark Mehal Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Trackon Courier Private Limited, Head Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor 148001.

2.             Trackon Courier Private Limited, A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi 110028 through its Branch Manager.                                                              

…Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Ms.Gaganjit Kaur, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

 

uorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER:

 

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant got booked a parcel containing two ladies suit amounting to Rs.10,000/- approximate for Gurgaon through OP number 1 vide invoice number/pouch number 6773978 and consignment number 7815205 dated 30.12.2017 by paying an amount of Rs.250/- to OP number 1 for the above said service including insurance charges.   The OP number 1 assured the complainant that the parcel will be delivered to the consignee  and the same were meant for Lohri Function and the same were to be delivered to consignee before 13.1.2018 but the same was not received by the consignee, namely, Sahiba Nanda, M2/37A, DLF, Phase-2 Gurgaon, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 on 15.1.2018, who told the complainant that the parcel has been lost. As such the complainant requested the OP number 1 to pay the cost of the consignment, but it refused to do so. By this way the complainant suffered heavy mental tension and harassment. The complainant has thus prayed that the OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.250/- being the cost of articles and courier charges besides amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that as per terms and conditions of the OPs  that “if not covered by special risk surcharges, claim value on his shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs.2000/- for parcels and Rs.100/- for packet of documents”, as such in no circumstances the complainant is not entitled for more than Rs.2000/-. Clause 3 provides that sender must indicate the actual and correct nature of the goods. Clause 4 provides that in case of loss, theft etc, damage etc. of booked consignment the maximum liability of the company/Franchisee shall not exceed the sum equivalent to four times of courier charges paid/payable or as calculated as per clause 5 which provides that if, not covered by special risk surcharges, claim value on the shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs.2000/- for parcels and Rs.100/- for packet of documents. Clause 6 makes it mandatory that in case of valuable parcel, consignor should declare the value and pay guarantee charges @ 1% FOV which separate receipts are issued by the answering Ops and in the absence of which no claim shall be entertained. Legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. On merits, it has been admitted that the consignment booked by the complainant got lost near Gurgaon while the same was taken out for delivery, which the best of efforts could not be traced out.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 receipt of the courier, Ex.C-2 copy of tracking status, Ex.C-3 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 authority letter, Ex.OPs/2 self attested affidavit and Ex.OP/3 copy of sample courier receipt and closed evidence.

4.             We have  perused the complaint, written reply and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting booked his consignment/packet vide receipt dated 30.12.2017 by paying the requisite consideration of Rs.250/- for onward delivery to the addressee at Gurgaon.  It is further an admitted fact that the said packet was lost by the OPs during transit, which was never delivered to the addressee. But, on the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the packet of the complainant got lost near Gurgaon. Further the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the maximum liability of the OPs is Rs.2000/- only in case of any loss of the article/parcel.

6.             The Ops have produced on record the copy of the booking receipt and it has been observed that on the face of this it has been mentioned that “if not covered by the special surcharges, Claim value on this shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs.2000/- for parcel and Rs.100/- for packet of documents" and also has mentioned "Read terms and conditions printed over leaf carefully". The complainant has  placed on record  Ex.C-1 copy of courier receipt Ex.C-2 showing payment of Rs.250/- made to the OP number 1 for the service i.e. onward delivery of the parcel to the consignee.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of tracking status and Ex.C-3 is the affidavit of the complainant to support his contention in the complaint. On the other hand, the OPs have  produced only the copy of the sample of the courier receipt containing terms and conditions printed on the back side of the same for our perusal but it nowhere shoes that the same were ever explained to the complainant at any moment of time.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the parcel containing the ladies suit was not delivered to the consignee. The fact remains that the parcel containing the ladies suit was lost during transit by the OPs.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are liable to make the loss good to the complainant by paying the compensation thereof. We further find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, more so when the OPs have charged an amount of Rs.250/- for delivering the parcel in question to the consignee which was never delivered as admitted by the OPs in the written reply.  The complainant suffered mental tension and harassment and financial loss due to this reason.  In the circumstances, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the cost of parcel and further to refund to the complainant as the courier charges and Rs.250/- so recovered from the complainant. Further the Ops are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of 45 days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        January 9, 2024.