National Consumer Disputes Redressal
. Air Star Express Courier vs Inder Medical Store on 16 March, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION No. 3702 of 2007
(From
the Order dated 10.09.2007 in Appeal No. 1715/06 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan)
M/s. Air Star Express
Courier,
C-8, Laxmi Market,
Station Road,
Sikar,
Rajasthan,
Through its
proprietor/owner .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. M/s.
Inder Medical Store,
Through
its Proprietor,
Sh.
Inder Chand Todi,
R/o Sharma Building,
Near Tapadia
Bagichi,
Station Road,
Sikar, Rajasthan
2. M/s.
Aditya Medisales Ltd.
C-1,
Mittal Chambers,
Near
Roadways Workshop,
Chomu House, C-Scheme,
Jaipur,
Rajasthan,
Through
its Director Respondent
BEFORE:
-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
For the
Petitioner
: Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate
For the
Respondent : N E M O
PRONOUNCED
ON: 16.03.2012
O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Petitioner which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 10.09.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short, the State Commission) in appeal no. 1715/06 whereunder the State Commission reversing the order of the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.26,137/- to the Respondent No.1 along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 22.1.05 till realization. Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.
FACTS:-
Complainant/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) sent a parcel of medicines worth Rs.26,137/- on 10.01.05 to Respondent No.2 through Courier Services of the Petitioner. Rs.30/- were paid as handling charges. He received a letter from Respondent No.2 on 22.1.05 asking him to send the parcel of medicines to settle the claim. Respondent No.1 informed the Respondent No.2 that he had already sent the parcel of medicines. Respondent No.2 denied having received the same. Respondent No.1 thereafter enquired from the Petitioner who admitted that it had not delivered the parcel to the Respondent No.2 and that the parcel had been lost in transit. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint seeking recovery of Rs.26,137/- with interest @ 24% p.a along with compensation and costs.
Petitioner, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement. The stand taken by the Petitioner in the written statement was that he handed over the parcel to Kamdhenu Air Services, Nandwana Mansion, Ist Floor Corner, Loha Mandi, S.C. Road Jaipur for its delivery to Respondent No.2. That the delivery man Jitender S/o Damodar Lal delivered the said parcel at the given address of the Respondent No.2 on 13.01.05. That seal of Mittal Enterprises was obtained on the receipt of delivery. It was asserted that since the parcel had been delivered to the consignee there was no deficiency in service on their part.
District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner as the parcel had been delivered to Respondent No.2. Complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Respondent No.1, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission setting aside the order of the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.26,137/- to the Respondent No.1 along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 22.1.05 till realization. Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.
State Commission came to the conclusion that the onus to prove that the parcel had been duly delivered to the Respondent No.2 was on the Petitioner. That the fixation of seal of Mittal Enterprises at Column No.27 of the run-sheet without the signatures of the person who received the parcel, was not sufficient to prove that the parcel had been duly delivered to Respondent No.2. That It was necessary to obtain the signatures in full or in short of the person to whom the parcel had been delivered. State Commission recorded the finding as under:-
In our views, it was necessary to obtain the signature in full or short of the person to whom the delivery of the said parcel was given. Respondent No.2 has also stated that it has not received the said parcel. Ld. Forum has considered the main issue of the affidavit of Jitender Kumar, deliveryman, but such affidavit of delivery man was natural because he was himself responsible for not delivering the said parcel. In our views, nothing satisfactory documents or proof has been placed on record to suggest that the said parcel was actually received by respondent No.2. In facts and circumstances, we find deficiency in services on the part of respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 after having received the said parcel from petitioner not delivered to respondent No.2 and Petitioner is entitled to claim the damages suffered due to such deficiency in services. Petitioner send a parcel of medicines of Rs.26,137/- and is entitled to recover the said amount from respondent No.1. Besides, Petitioner is entitled to claim interest @ 9% p.a on the said amount w.e.f. 22.1.05 and also entitled to Rs.2,000/- as costs of the petition.
We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Fixation of seal without signatures of the person who received the parcel is not sufficient to prove that the parcel had been delivered by the Petitioner to the consignee. Petitioner firm is a courier service providing agency which obtains the couriers and parcels from the customers and delivers them to the specified address and charges a specific amount of money for the services provided by it. If the courier or the parcel is not delivered at the given address or if it reaches in a damaged condition then the act of the Petitioner would certainly amount to deficiency in service.
Counsel for the Petitioner then invited our attention to clause 2 of the terms and conditions printed on the receipt which provides that this Company limits its liability to a maximum of Rs.100/- per consignment in any case. That the Petitioners liability is limited and the Petitioner is not liable to pay more than Rs.100/- for the loss of consignment. We do not find any substance in this submission. Written statement filed by the Petitioner before the District Forum has not been placed on record. From the order of the District Forum, it appears that in the written statement Petitioner had nowhere stated that the liability of the Petitioner was limited to Rs.100/- only.
We are not sure whether the receipt now shown to us was produced in evidence before the District Forum.
Otherwise also, this point has neither been considered or decided either by the District Forum or the State Commission. Under these circumstances, the plea now taken by the Petitioner that liability was limited to Rs.100/- only, cannot be accepted.
For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs as the Complainant/Respondent No.1 is not present.
.. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd/