State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited vs Lalit Mittal on 31 October, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.964 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 05.07.2007.
Date of Decision: 31.10.2012.
On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited, having its Registered Office at R-551,
Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and having its Regional
Office at SCO No.68-70, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager Sh.
Jatin Kathuria.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Lalit Mittal S/o Sh. Varinder Mittal, Resident of near Old Grain Market,
Tehsil and District Sangrur.
....Respondent.
2. Inderjit Sharma, Agency Holder, On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited,
Office near Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur.
....Performa Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
26.04.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate, proxy for Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh.Parvez Akhtar Advocate, counsel for respondent no.1. Service of respondent no.2 Dispensed with.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.04.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Lalit Mittal, respondent no.1/ complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against First Appeal No.964 of 2007 2 the appellant and respondent no.2, asserting that respondent no.2 is carrying on the business of above courier in Sangrur. On 24.06.2006, respondent no.1 purchased 1200 pieces of glass from Singla Gems vide bill no.10 dated 24.06.2006 for a sum of Rs.17,553/- and packed them in three separate packets and prepared two parcels and the same were intended to be sent to Pathankot.
3. On 28.06.2006, respondent no.1 booked two parcels containing three packets of Chinese Glass (Signatory Brand) to be delivered at Pathankot to Pawan Jewelers, Main Bazar, Pathankot. Respondent no.2, who is agent of the appellant issued receipts no.290842991 and 290842992 and received an amount of Rs.60/- i.e. Rs.30/- for each parcel. Respondent no.2 assured respondent no.1 that the articles would reach the destination within 3-4 days, but the said articles were not delivered. Respondent no.1 approached the respondent no.2 on 15.07.2006 and inquired about the articles booked by him, but the respondent no.2 suggested to respondent no.1 that he should inquire from the head office and from the head office, the respondent no.1 was advised to meet respondent no.2, who is self responsible for the consignment. Respondent no.1 met respondent no.2 again, but the matter was not taken seriously and respondent no.1 served a legal notice on 19.07.2006, but till date the appellant has not delivered the parcel to Pawan Jewelers at Pathankot, which amounts to deficiency in service. Respondent no.1 also suffered lot of mental agony and harassment and is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
4. It was prayed that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to deliver the articles at Pathankot or to respondent no.1 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent no.2, legal objections were taken that the respondent no.1 has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint. Respondent no.1 First Appeal No.964 of 2007 3 has concealed true and material facts and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is abuse of the process of the law and the Forum has no jurisdiction. The maximum liability of the courier is Rs.100/- only, which is mentioned in the front of the shipper, copy of consignment note and duly accepted by respondent no.1 at the time of booking.
6. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent no.2 is running a courier company as agent of the company and respondent no.2 is not owner of On Dot Courier Company. Respondent no.1 handed over two envelopes to respondent no.2 which were very light in weight and those two envelopes were in the shape of two registered envelopes and the weight of those two envelopes was mentioned in the manifest documents, which show that the same were very light in weight. No insurance was required. No value was declared and appellant and respondent no.2 charged Rs.30/- from respondent no.1. The appellant explained the terms and conditions of the courier to respondent no.1 and after admitting the same, he handed over the envelopes for sending to the addressee. The liability of the courier is Rs.100/- only. The envelopes are delivered at the destination. The present complaint is false and is a tactics only to grab money from the appellant and respondent no.2. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the terms and conditions printed on Ex.R-30 and Ex.R- 31 are not signed by respondent no.1 and the same cannot form part of the contract or negotiation between the two parties. The complaint was allowed and the appellant and respondent no.2 were directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No.964 of 2007 4
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.04.2007, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent no.1.
11. Service of respondent no.2 was dispensed with vide order dated November 13, 2007 of this Commission.
12. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that respondent no.1 is neither consignor nor consignee of the packet regarding which the complaint was filed. Signity glasses which are used for making ornaments were allegedly sent in the packet, which is purely a commercial transaction. T he respondent no.1 did not disclose the contents of the packet nor paid guarantee charges and the appellant courier company is not liable for the said loss. The order of the District Forum is against the facts and law and is liable to be set aside, as the appellant at the most is liable to pay Rs.100/- as per the terms and conditions.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 contended that the order passed by the District Forum is legal and as per the evidence on record and the appeal deserves dismissal.
14. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties and have carefully gone through the entire material and record placed on the file.
15. Admittedly, respondent no.1 booked two parcels on 28.06.2006, containing three packets of Chinese glasses (signatory brand) to be delivered at Pathankot to Pawan Jewellers, Main Bazar, Pathankot. Respondent no.2, who is agency holder of the appellant, issued receipts no.290842991 and 290842992 and received an amount of Rs.60/- i.e. Rs.30/- for each parcel. The said parcel did not reach the destination. The main plank of the arguments of the appellant is that neither respondent no.1 was consigner nor First Appeal No.964 of 2007 5 consignee and the signity glasses which were sent in the packets are used for making ornaments and the same is purely a commercial transaction.
16. This argument of the appellant is not tenable, because the sending of the articles through the courier to a third party cannot be termed as commercial transaction. The appellant has charged the amount for delivering the parcels at the destination, but the same did not reach the destination. The appellant and respondent no.2 are responsible and are deficient in service and the District Forum has rightly observed that the receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3(Ex.R-30 and Ex.R-31) are neither signed by respondent no.1, nor the same were brought to the notice of respondent no.1. The order of the District Forum is detailed and is based on the evidence and the law and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The learned counsel for the appellant along with the written arguments, cited the following judgments:-
i) "Economic Transport Organization Vs M/s Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr." 2010 ACJ-2288(SC),
ii) "M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited Vs Amritpal Kaur", F.A. No.1495 of 2007, decided on 04.11.2011(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission).
iii) "M/s Track on Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Ride Energy Controls Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors.", F.A. No.74 of 2011, decided on 21.11.2011(Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission).
iv) "M/s Track on Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gopal", F.A. No.437 of 2010, decided on 17.03.2011(Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission).
The above cited judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, because there is no commercial transaction.
17. In view of above discussion, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 26.04.2007 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
18. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.10,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent First Appeal No.964 of 2007 6 no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
19. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant and respondent no.2 within 60 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 30.10.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member October 31, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)