DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                  Complaint no. 667                                                                                        

                                                                 Instituted on:   18.11.2016                                                                             

                                                                 Decided on:    15.03.2017

Gagan Singla son of Sh. Ashok Kumar Singla resident of H.No.521, Street No.2-B, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Sangrur.      

                                                …. Complainant

                                                             Versus

1.     Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd ( Head Office), A-64, Naraina Industrial Phase-I, Delhi-110028 through its Manager.

2.    Trackon Courier Pvt. Limited Shop No.66, Kaula Park, Opposite Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sangrur through its Manager.

3.     Goyal Communication, Near Old Fire Brigade, Sangrur through its proprietor.  

                                              ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri P.K.Gupta Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1&2     :          Shri Darshan Gupta, Advocate.

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3          :      Exparte                         

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Gagan Singla, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 15.08.2016 he visited the OP no.3 to dispatch a courier at Patiala and handed over the courier to OP no.3 who charged  the service fee . On 18.08.2016, complainant verified from Sudesh Kumar son of Sh. Bhan Chand resident of H. No.61, Professor Colony, Opposite Punjabi University, Patiala about courier sent to him who told that he has not received the courier till that date. Thereafter the complainant approached OP no.2 who told the complainant to wait because  the courier is in transit. On 25.09.2016,  the complainant again verified from Mr. Sudesh Kumar but he told till date he had not received the courier. The complainant then approached the OPs no.2 and 3 to enquire about the matter  but they misbehaved with him. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.40,000/-,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.3 did not appear and as such OP no.3 was proceeded exparte on 06.03.2017.

3.             In reply filed by OPs No. 1&2, preliminary  objection has been taken that  OPs  have made known their liability by very categorically declaring on the front page of 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. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant booked a consignment with the OP no.3 on 15.08.2016  which was booked as per weight only since no declaration regarding the contents of consignment was made nor any transit insurance was opted  for by the complainant. It is further submitted that consignment was booked  in the ordinary way and was charged Rs.30/- as per weight and  no declaration was made that the same contained any such valuable item as alleged. No invoice of any item was furnished to the OPs at the time booking of the consignment. OPs had no knowledge of the actual contents of the consignment as the packing was done by the complainant himself in which the OP had no role to play. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1&2.

4.             In reply filed by the OP no.3, it is admitted that the  complainant booked a consignment with OP no.3.      

5.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1, Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No.1&2 has tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/3 and closed evidence.   

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No. 1&2, we find that booking of consignment with OPs and  non-delivery of the same at its destination are not disputed  because of the OPs no.1 and 2  in their reply themselves have admitted that  complainant booked a consignment with  OP no.3  who is an authorized agent of OPs no.1 and 2  on 15.08.2016  and despite their best efforts  OPs could not trace the same and the complainant was duly informed about the said  unfortunate loss of his consignment and was offered four times courier charges as per terms and conditions of the booking agreement. Now, the only question which arises for determination before us is that how much amount will be paid by the OPs as loss  of the consignment booked by the complainant ?

6.             The OPs have made specific objection in their reply that  consignment was booked as per weight only since no declaration regarding the contents of the consignment  was made nor any transit insurance  was opted for by the complainant and the consignment was booked in the  ordinary way for which the Ops had charged only Rs.30/- . It has been stated by the Ops that  no declaration was made that the same contained any such valuable item as alleged and no invoice  of any item was furnished  to the OPs at the time of  consignment.  It is a matter of common knowledge that if the booked consignment was so valuable, as alleged by the complainant, then it was the duty of the complainant to disclose  the detail and value of the such booked consignment/ article and got it insured after paying  extra charging to the OPs but the complainant has failed to do so at the time of booking the consignment. The complainant has failed to produce any such document/ record on the file which could show that he made efforts for the same. Moreover, the complainant  in the instant case has also failed to disclose/ prove that  what item contained in consignment booked with the OPs  and what is its value. It is difficult to assess the value of the consignment/ article which was booked  by the complainant with the OPs. As the OPs  have admitted that the booked consignment was lost, so they could not deliver the same at its destination which itself proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We feel it would be reasonable  if the OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-  as compensation  on account of deficiency in service.   

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental pain, harassment and  litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                March 15, 2017

                                            (Vinod Kumar Gulati)           ( Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                    

                                                        Member                    Member                         President