Haryana

Ambala

CC/32/2015

Deep Chand Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ashok Gupta

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                      Complaint Case No.:  32 of 2015

          Date of Institution   :  02.02.2015

          Date of Decision  :   06.04.2016

Deep Chand Gupta S/o Jati Ram Gupta R/o H.No.96, Preet Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                 ……….Complainant

                                                                                                 Versus

1.       Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. through its officer Pardeep H.O. 87, Green Park, Near K.D. Hospital Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

2.       Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd.,Regional Office through Sh. Vikash Dixit, Machi Bazar, Near Sai Hospital, Ambala Cantt.

3.       Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. Central Office , A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

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

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Ashok Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Dixit, Op’s representative.                    

ORDER

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that his son Sh.Vinit Bindal posted as Captain in Indian Army at Tinsukhia, (Arunachal Pradesh) requested complainant to send all his original academic & technical qualification certificates through courier. So, the complainant on dated 30.09.2014 approached the OP courier for sending the documents and OP No.1 sent all original certificates including DMCs vide courier receipt No.416634987 to Tinsukhia and charged a sum of Rs.43/-. Thereafter, complainant informed his son accordingly that he may receive the said courier within 2/3 days but when the said courier not received by Sh. Vinit Bindal at Tinsukhia after one week of its sending, then complainant enquired from OP No.1 and  he assured that the documents will reach within one or two days. On 08.10.2014, complainant again visited the office of Ops but all in vain. Thereafter, complainant submitted an application to OP No.2 on 11.12.2014 stating  therein that  Op’s failed to deliver the courier at destination which was containing DMC’s of Matriculation, Senior Secondary (10+2), B.Tech. (8) semesters and all original certificates thereof including Degree of  B.Tech.  Complainant  has further contended that he has enquired from the school/college authorities for issuance of duplicate certificates and they told that about Rs.1500/- will spend in obtaining each document and it will also take time. Thus, the complainant has alleged that Ops are admittedly negligent and deficient in providing proper services  to him and thereby caused great mental agony and harassment to the complainant and his son. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement admitting therein that complainant booked a consignment with them on 30.09.2014  for Tinsukhia (Arunachal Pradesh) but the same could not be delivered to the consignee as the address was in an Armed Forces Area where private couriers are not entertained and only Govt. Postal Services are allowed by addressing consignments to Army Post Office. However, at the time of booking, complainant insisted that there was nothing urgent in the consignment and in case it is refused at the destination, then his son would collect it from the office of OP at Ita Nagar within 30 days and thus it was specifically told to the complainant that in such event, the consignee would have to collect the consignment beyond which the OP would not be  able to keep the consignment with them. On such mutual understanding, the said consignment was booked and despite various requests to the complainant to inform the consignee to collect the consignment, the same was not collected and finally, the OP disposed it off as ‘destroyed’ consignment.  In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.

3.                To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, Sh.  Vikas Dixit, Regional Manager of OP company tendered his affidavit as Anexure RX  and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

4.                At the very outset,  it is an admitted fact on record that the consignment (Annexure  C-1) was booked by OP on 30.09.2014 for delivering the same at Tansukhiya (Arunachal Pradesh) but Op’s failed to deliver the same to consignee at his destination on the premise that the destination was in Army area where the private couriers are not allowed rather Govt. Postals are allowed. Further the representative of OP’s contended that inspite of various requests made  to complainant  to inform his son to collect the consignment, the same was not done much to the inconvenience of opposite parties  and thus the OP’s were constrained to do away with the consignment. To rebut the said contention of OP’s representative, counsel for complainant argued that no such understanding was ever agreed between the parties that complainant’s  son will collect the consignment from the office of OP’s at Itanagar nor the complainant was ever informed by OPs to inform his son for collecting the courier as  alleged in the reply, as such, it is nothing but an after thought defence. 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”.

5.                After hearing both the parties and appreciating the documents placed on record, we are of the view that it is an admitted case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops since they failed to deliver the consignment to the son of complainant in whose name it was booked for delivering at Tinsukhia (Arunachal Pradesh). Further, it is also a clear cut example of unfair trade practice committed by Ops because if they were well aware as per their version that the consignment could not be delivered at its destination being Military Area, then why they booked the same which casts  deficiency on the part of Ops from the very beginning i.e. from the date of booking of the consignment. Besides it, Ops have not placed on record any evidence/document wherefrom it is proved that the consignment  was booked  conditionally subject to receiving of the same by consignee  himself from the office of OP at Itanagar or copy of any notice or letter written by Op’s to complainant at Ambala to inform his  son (consignee) to collect the courier in dispute whereas  complainant has placed  on record an application dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure C-2) made to OP No.1 qua non-delivery  of courier at Tinsukhiya (Arunachal Pradesh) and photocopy of DMC’s, certificates & B.Tech. Degree (Annexures C-3 to C-15) i.e. 13 documents which has been admittedly destroyed by OP’s. So, in these circumstances, we have no option  except to allow the present complaint and as such present 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.65000/- on account of charges & compensation  etc. for harassment & mental agony in collecting the duplicate copy of 13 documents (Annexures C-3 to C-15) which have been admittedly destroyed by Op’s instead of returning the same to complainant @ Rs.5000/- per document…

 

2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation charges including the Advocate’s fee.

 

                             Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in 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