Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/123/2019

Surender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trackon Courier - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No.123 of 2019.

                                        Date of instt.:01.4.2019. 

                                        Date of Decision:24.01.2020.

 

Surender Kumar s/o Shri Banarsi Dass, r/o H.No.510/12, Mohalla Darrakhera, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                …….Complainant.                                                  Versus

 

1. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028.
2. Trackon Couriers, near Aggarsain Chowk, Mohan Nagar, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Jasbir Singh Pahuja, Advocate for the complainant.   

Shri Mohit Tayal, Advocate for the opposite parties.

           

ORDER

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Surender Kumar against Trackon Couriers, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that on 28.8.2018, the complainant hired the services of the OP No.2 for a packet of a precious medicines which was very necessary to be delivered on time and the same was to be sent/delivered to the address of District Karnal. For this, Rs.30/- was paid by him vide receipt No.1355470221 dated 28.08.2018 was given by the OP No.2. That till today, the packet has not delivered. In this regard, he approached the OP No.1 as well as head office of OP No.1 many times, but nothing has been come out. That due to non delivery of packet, he suffered a financial loss of Rs.5000/- and harassed for non hearing his grievance. This way, the OPs are deficient in providing the services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as loss of medicine without any supporting evidence with the sole intention just to harass the OPs. It is stated that the complainant had paid Rs.30/- only towards the booking charges for his consignment for which he is claiming an amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is respectfully categorically declaring on the front page of the booking receipt which reads “If not covered by special risk surcharges, claim value on this shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs.2000/- for parcels and Rs.100/- for packet of documents”. By agreeing to such stipulations, a consignor cannot at a later stage claim more than what is stipulated therein as per his whims and wishes. That as per terms & conditions of the OPs as stipulated in the booking receipt or air way bill of which Clause 3 says that sender must indicate the actual and correct nature of goods, clause 4 stipulates that in case of loss, theft etc., clause 6 makes it mandatory that in case of valuable parcel consignor should declare the value and pay guarantee charges @ 1% FOV for which separate receipts are issued by the OPs and in the absence of which, no claim shall be entertained. On merits, it is stated that due to unforeseen circumstances the consignment booked by the complainant got lost in transit between Kurukshetra and Karnal, which despite the best of efforts, could not be traced out. After the loss of consignment, the complainant was informed about it and was also offered four times the courier charges as per policy of the OPs for lost of undeclared consignment. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith document Ex.C-1. On the other hand, the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Ex.R-1.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that on 28.8.2018, the complainant hired the services of the OP No.2 for a packet of a precious medicines which was very necessary to be delivered on time to the address of District Karnal after paying Rs.30/- vide receipt No.1355470221 dated 28.08.2018. He further argued that till today, the packet has not delivered and due to non delivery of that packet, the complainant suffered a financial loss of Rs.5000/- and harassed for non-hearing his grievance. In support to his contention, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/s Universal Exports and another, Civil Appeal No.1909 of 2004, dodo 15.9.2011 (SC); Air Star Express Courier Vs. Inder Medical Store and Anr., 2012 (2) CPC, 167 (NC); Hemant Kumar Namdev Vs. Madhur Courier Services & Ors., Appeal No.685 of 1998, dod 22.3.2000 (Madhya Pradesh State Commission, Bhopal); Mandeep Gill Vs. Sudhir Kumar, 2008 (4) CPC, 138 (NC) and Rana Document Centre Vs. Pawan Kumar Goyal, First Appeal No.307 of 2011, dod 22.11.2011 (Chandigarh State Commission, U.T.).

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OPs has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in the reply. He argued that the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as loss of medicine without any supporting evidence. He further argued that it is respectfully categorically declaring on the front page of the booking receipt which reads “If not covered by special risk surcharges, claim value on this shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs.2000/- for parcels and Rs.100/- for packet of documents”. He further argued that due to unforeseen circumstances the consignment booked by the complainant got lost in transit between Kurukshetra and Karnal, which despite the best of efforts, could not be traced out. After the loss of consignment, the complainant was informed about it and was also offered four times the courier charges as per policy of the OPs for lost of undeclared consignment, but he refused to accept the same, so there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. In support to his contention, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Sunil Chawla Vs. World Pack India Ltd. and others, 2009 CTJ-CP (NCDRC); M/s Blue Dart Courier Service and another Vs. M/s Modern Wool Ltd., 1986-94, 464-467 )NC); Indrapuri Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Allied Business Corporation, 2007 (3) CLT, 673.

8.             There is no dispute that the complainant had booked a consignment for Karnal with the OP No.1 vide Consignment Receipt Ex.C-1/Ex.R-1. There is also no dispute that the said consignment was got lost in transit and this fact is a.lso admitted by the OPs in their reply. By not delivering the said consignment to the addressee, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing services to the complainant and are thus liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant.

9.             Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In this regard, the Clause No.5 of the terms & conditions stipulated in the booking receipt or air way bill Ex.C1/Ex.R1 is relevant, which reads as under:-

        “If not covered by special risk surcharges, claim value on this shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs.2000/- for parcels and Rs.100/- for packet of documents”.

 

                In this regard, the complainant has alleged that he sent packet of a precious medicines worth Rs.5000/-, but the complainant has not produced any bill or documentary proof regarding the said medicines, without which, this contention of the complainant is not believable, hence rejected. However, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the duty of the OPs to verify the nature of the consignment from the consignor before accepting the consignment, but from the Consignment receipt Ex.C1/Ex.R1, it is evident that neither the OPs have not mentioned the nature of the consignment nor mentioned the weight of the items, which also shows their deficiency in services. As such, as per Clause No.5 as stipulated in the backside of Booking Receipt Ex.C1/Ex.R1, the OPs are liable to indemnify the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the loss to the parcel. The OPs are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. The case laws produced by the complainant are fully applicable to the present case, whereas, the case laws produced by the OPs are not disputed, but the same are not helpful to the case of the OPs ‘being rested on different footings.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint partly and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

 

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:24.01.2020.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.