Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/374/2023

MOHINDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRACKON COURIERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/374/2023
Date of Institution	:	04/08/2023
Date of Decision	:	01/12/2023

 

Mohinder s/o Sh. Charan Dass r/o Flat No.101, GH 41, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.25, Phase I, Indl. Area, Chandigarh 160002 through Regional Incharge.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	OP ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mohinder, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 28.6.2023, complainant had handed over one induction cooktop (hereinafter referred to as “subject product”) to the OP for sending the same on the given address of Noida through courier on payment of ₹200/- vide receipt (Annexure C-1).  At the time of booking of the said courier, it was assured to the complainant that the subject product will be delivered safely to the addressee. The complainant had also informed the OP that the parcel contains induction cooktop and it was specifically mentioned on the packet “handle with care”. The said parcel was delivered to the addressee on 3.7.2023 at Noida and when the same was opened, it was found in totally damaged condition. The complainant had approached the OP through mobile, but, with no response. Copies of tracking report, photographs of damaged product and email are Annexure C-2 to C-4 respectively.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 4.10.2023.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered/proved evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that on 28.6.2023 he had booked a parcel containing an induction cooktop i.e. the subject product with the OP for sending the same through courier to the addressee/consignee at Noida by paying an amount of ₹200/- to the OP and when the subject product was received by the addressee, the same was found in damaged condition, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the said act amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant.
   2. As it is clear from the receipt (Annexure C-1) that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹200/- to the OP courier service provider for delivery of the subject product at Noida and the same was damaged during transit and was received in damaged condition by the addressee, as is also evident from the photographs (Annexure C-3), the deficiency in service on the part of the OP stands proved, especially when the entire evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted by the OP.   Not only this, when the complainant had contacted the OP by sending email (Annexure C-4) intimating it about the damage caused to the subject product and asking for the amount of compensation which has not been replied by the OP, it is further clear that the evidence led by the complainant to that extent is also not rebutted by the OP and the complainant has proved his case, as set up in the consumer complaint, and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
   3. Now coming to the quantum of relief to be awarded to the complainant, since the complainant has not proved any tax invoice showing the value of the subject product or the date of its purchase by him, therefore, the amount of ₹2,684/- claimed by him towards the same cannot be granted to him.  However, still we are of the view that the value of such product may not be less than ₹1,500/- and OP is liable to pay the same to the complainant alongwith compensation etc.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹1,500/- to the complainant towards the value of the subject product.
2. to pay ₹1,500/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹1,500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/12/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member