Haryana

Ambala

CC/225/2015

A.S. Enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trackon Couriers Pvt. - Opp.Party(s)

Mahesh Batra

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                    Complaint Case No.:   225 of 2015

          Date of Institution   :   19.08.2015

          Date of Decision  :     06.04.2016

A.S. Enterprises, 5496/3, Ist Floor, Near Old Anaj Mandi, Ambala City through Prop. Manish Jolly.

……….Complainant

                                                                                      Versus

1.       Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028.

2.       Balwinder Singh Gill, Manager, M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Opp. Octroi Kanta, Purani Chungi, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Mahesh Batra, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                    Sh. Vikas Dixit, OP’s representative.                    

ORDER

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that on 19.05.2015, complainant vide shipmen No.443619801 got dispatched 10 AVR Cards to Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Syed Villa, Second Floor, House No.35, Punjabari Road, Opp. Metropolitan Girls High School, Six Mile, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam through OP No.2 by packing in a box on payment of requisite charges. The consignment was having value of Rs.39270/- including CST @ 2% as per invoice no.43 dated 07.05.2015 but the said box lost due to negligence of the OPs during transit and after waiting for a long period, the parcel not reached its destination. So, complainant got registered a complaint on official website of OP No.1 on 06.06.2015 vide complaint No.2007309 which was replied by OP vide e-mail that “we/our team has put in  best efforts to trace out the consignment but  the same was untraceable in our network and we sincerely regret for the same & apologize  for inconvenience caused to you.  Kindly provide the invoice for the next course.” As such, complainant  send scanned copy of invoice and  copy of samples of the AVR Cards.  But the Ops did not settled the matter rather lingered on the same without any cause. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred by the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint under the purview of Consumer Law. On merits, it has been denied that  complainant booked any article such as 10 AVR Cards costing  worth Rs.39270/- rather submitted that the consignment was booked in the ordinary way and no declaration was made that the same contained any valuable articles as alleged.  It has been further submitted that the consignment of complainant got lost due to unfortunate circumstances while in transit from Delhi to Guwahati and despite a massive search, the same could not be traced out and the complainant was informed about the said unfortunate loss and offered four times courier charges as per terms & conditions of the booking agreement but the complainant did not agree with the same.  Thus, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with  costs.

3.                To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-14 i.e. copy of consignment receipt no.443619801 dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure C-1), copy of retail invoice of the AVR Cards of Rs.39270/- (Annexure C-2), and  copies of complaints made by complainant to Ops (Annexures C-3 to C-10) whereby the Ops have admitted that ‘despite best efforts to trace out the consignment, it was untraceable. Further they feel apology and requested the complainant to provide  the invoice for the next course’ and copy  of Regd. Notice, postal receipts & AD etc. (Annexures C-11 to C-14) and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, Sh. Vikas Dixit, AGM of OP company tendered his affidavit as Annexure RX and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

4.                At the very outset, it is admitted fact between the parties that the consignment booked by complainant with OP for Guwahati lost during transit for which OP’s demanded copy of Invoice from complainant for next course vide  e-mail dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure C-8) but as per complainant, OP did not settle the matter and he has to file the present complaint whereas OP’s contention is that ‘In the absence of any pre-declared consignment, the respondents/Ops are at best liable to pay 4 times of the courier charges as per norms of the courier industry i.e. Rs.100/- in case of packet of documents or Rs.2000/- in case of parcels’ which they offered to complainant who did not agree with the same and in no circumstances, complainant is entitled for anything apart from the aforesaid amounts as per terms & conditions of the contract.  To further strengthen his case, Counsel for complainant also placed reliance on  case law The Franch Express Vs  Natarajan 2006(1) CPJ Pg.529 rendered by Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission wherein it is held that “once the consignment is accepted to deliver to the addressee/consignee, it is the duty of OP to have done it with promptitude  and the condition, if any, imposed by OP would not limit the liability of opposite party”.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP argued that present complaint is barred by the exception clause of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act since complainant has availed services of Op for a commercial purpose and as such he is not covered in the definition of consumer. To rebut the said contention of OP, counsel of the complainant argued that complainant firm may be commercial but services hired by complainant is for delivering the product at the destination of consignee and not for generating any profit from the OP and as such the objection raised by the Op is devoid of merits and complaint is squarely covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

5.                In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the considered view that it is an admitted case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops since they failed to deliver the consignment to its destination at Guwahati despite booking and charging amount for it. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order:-

(i)      To pay a sum of Rs.39270/- as mentioned in invoice dated 07.05.2015 showing transportation through Trackon Courier vide GR/RR No.443619801 (Annexure C-1 & C-2) alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Booking of parcel i.e. 19.05.2015 to till realization.

(ii)     To pay a sum of 5000/- as compensation for harassment & mental agony etc.

3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- for litigation charges including Advocate’s fee.

 

                             Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract further interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in the above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED:06.04.2016                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                  (A.K. SARDANA)

                                PRESIDENT             

                                                                                                       Sd/-

           (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                             MEMBER