Punjab

Sangrur

CC/302/2018

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Tomesh Sharma

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.    302

                                                Instituted on:      17.07.2018

                                                Decided on:       15.03.2019

 

Amit Kumar Goyal son of Late Sh. Shiv Kumar Goyal, resident of House No. C947, Ward No.2, Street No.9, Khalifa Bagh, Sangrur Punjab.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. A-64, Nariana, Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi 110 028 through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2.             Trackon Courier Pvt Ltd, Kaula Park Shop No.64 opposite Kotak Mohindra Bank, Sangrur.                                                                

…Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Tomesh Sharma, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                   Mrs. Manisha, Member

 

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a transport adviser and running the shop in the District Court Complex for his livelihood. That the OP number 1 is a Limited company engaged in courier service. The case of the complainant is that he availed the service of the OP number 2 by sending some important documents to Sh.Sohan Lal Sharma, Barwala, District Hisar through courier dated 17-4-2018. It is further averred that though the OP number 2 assured that the same will reach to the addressee within 2 days, but the same never reached to the addressee. It is further averred that the complainant approached so many times to the OP number 2 at Sangrur, but nothing happened.  It is further averred that by this way due to the negligence of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a loss due to non delivery of the documents to the consignee. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the documents besides amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs, in the preliminary objection the Ops have submitted that as per term and conditions of the answering Ops as stipulated on the booking receipt of courier receipt bill of which 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 complainant has suppressed the  material facts from this Forum, the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and as such is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had sent some documents through the Ops to be delivered at Hissar, but it has been denied for want of knowledge that there were some important documents as alleged by the complainant. It is stated further that if there were valuable documents, then the complainant should get the same insured. It is admitted that the OPs had charged Rs.30/- from the complainant as usually charged for regular documents.  It is stated further that the consignment booked by the complainant got lost near the Hissar when the same was taken out for the delivery, despite the best effort could not be traced out. Some times despite the best possible care and percussions loss or damage of consignments during transit can not be ruled out. It is precisely for these reasons the client insist on transit insurance to be taken by the consigner. In case the consignment is valuable which the complainant did not opt for in the present case. It has been denied that the complainant suffered any loss due to the loss of the packet.  Further it is stated that in case of theft of any packet of documents, the liability of the OPs is up to Rs.100/- only.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 receipt of the courier, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice dated 10-05-2018, Ex.C-3 copy of the postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 affidavit, Ex.OPs/2 authority letter, Ex.OPs/3 sample courier receipt along with the terms and conditions, Ex.Ops/4 reply to the legal notice, Ex.OPs/5 postal receipt and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, written reply and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting booked his packet containing various documents vide receipt dated 17.4.2018 by paying the requisite consideration of Rs.30/- for onward delivery to the addressee at Hissar.  It is further an admitted fact that the said packet containing the documents 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 packets of the complainant got lost near Hissar. Further the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the maximum liability of the OPs is Rs.100/- 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 not placed on record any document pertaining to the contents of the packet.  We may mention here that only OP produced the copy of the sample of the courier receipt containing terms and conditions printed on the back side of the same for our perusal, Ex.Op-3 and as per  serial number 5, the claim value for parcel does not exceed Rs.100/-. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops could establish on record that their maximum liability in case of loss of the parcel/packet is Rs.100/- only.  But, due to loss of packet courier receipt suffered mental tension and harassment.  In the circumstances, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             In sequel of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30/- received from the complainant as the courier charges and Rs.100/- as a claim value. Further the Ops are directed to pay Rs.1000/- 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.

                        March 15, 2019.

                               

                                    

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                    Presiding Member

 

                                       

                                                        ( Manisha)

                                                         Member