Punjab

Sangrur

CC/399/2016

Roshan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Smt. Anjana Jindal

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                      

                                                Complaint No.  399

                                                Instituted on:    16.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       21.10.2016

 

Roshan Kumar Prop. Aggarwal Book Depot, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. A-64, Narina, Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.             Managing Director, Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. A-64, Narina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.

3.             Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.66, Kaula Park, Opposite Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sangrur through its authorised agent.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Ms.Anjana Jindal, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Roshan Kumar, 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 had purchased six pieces of toner chips vide bill number 70 dated 18.4.2015 from Digital Solutions, Mohali for an amount of Rs.9514/-, but the same were not as per the order placed by the complainant, as such, on the advice of the seller, the complainant had to sent these items at New Delhi.  The case of the complainant is that the complainant got booked the said items with the OP number 3 vide receipt number 474946713 dated 21.11.2015 and the Op charged an amount of Rs.30/- as consideration for delivery of the parcel in question to the consigner i.e. M/s. Prime Technologies, New Delhi.  The case of the complainant is that the OP never delivered the said parcel to the consignee and in last on 11.2.2016, the Op number 3 vide email dated 11.2.2016 confirmed that the parcel has been lost.  It is further stated that by not delivering the parcel in question, the Ops are deficient in service. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay him the amount of Rs.9544/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant is a commercial firm, that the complainant is not a consumer, and that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant got booked a letter on 21.11.2015 vide receipt in question. It is stated further that the complainant had not specifically disclosed the value of the letter and the same was not insured and did not make the payment of insurance. It is stated further that the maximum liability of the Ops is Rs.100/- only being the domestic consignment. It is further stated that unless and until the booked parcel is covered by special risk surcharge, claim value of the courier would in no circumstances exceed Rs.2000/- per parcel and Rs.100/- per packet.   It is totally denied that the value of the parcel was Rs.9544/- as mentioned in the complaint.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of Dhiraj Sharma, Ex.C-2 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-3 copy of VAT invoice, Ex.C-4 copy of courier receipt, Ex.C-5 copy of email and closed evidence.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of courier blank receipt, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3 affidavit, Ex.OP-4 copy of authority letter 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.             First objection in the reply of the complaint raised by the Ops is that the complainant is not a consumer as the consignment was for commercial purpose and not for personal use by the complainant to earn his livelihood.  But, we are unable to go with this contention of the OPs that the same was for commercial purpose, rather the toner chip 7435 was for running the photocopier machine in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment, more so when the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant is selling the toner chip again by taking profit or is in the business of selling the toner chip, as in the present case, the complainant had to consume the same.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is a consumer and his complaint is very much maintainable.

 

6.             The complainant has produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-2 to support the allegations in the complaint and further has also produced the affidavit Ex.C-1 of Shri Dhiraj Sharma, authorised agent of the OPs.  We have very carefully perused the affidavit Ex.C-1 of Dhiraj Sharma and para a) of the affidavit is reproduced as “  That the deponent is running the trackon courier service at Sangrur on 11.02.2016 the complainant booked his parcel for delivery to prime technologies with the deponent at the time of booking the parcel, the deponent demanded the bill of the goods containing in the parcel and the same was given to the deponent by the complainant, which was of Rs.9,514/-. The value of toner chips. The parcel could not be traced and therefore, the same could not be delivered. The deponent made the promise to the complainant that either he will return the parcel to the complainant or if it could not be traced he will make the payment of the value of parcel.”   In the present case, the grievance of the complainant and relief claimed is for refund of the amount of Rs.9544/- i.e. the value of the parcel, which the OP number 3 i.e. Shri Dhiraj Sharma has/had agreed to pay, as is evident from his affidavit produced in favour of the complainant Ex.C-1.  It is worth mentioning here that the said Shri Dhiraj Sharma has also filed the affidavit Ex.OP-2 in support of the Ops.  But, we failed to understand why the said Dhiraj Sharma has filed two affidavits i.e. Ex.C-1 and Ex.OP-2, one in support of the complainant and another in support of the OPs.  As such, facts itself speak that when Shri Dhiraj Sharma agreed to refund the amount of Rs.9544/- (as mentioned in the affidavit Ex.C-1), then what was the necessity for the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 3 is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.9544/-.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP number 3 to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.9544/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.05.2016.  Further OP number 3 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

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

                Pronounced.

                October 21, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                       Member

 

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member