State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurpreet Singh vs M/S On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. on 12 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1169 of 2009
Date of institution : 19.08.2009
Date of decision : 12 .10.2009
S.Gurpreet Singh s/o Jagjit Singh r/o L10 Anteryami Colony, Gali no.8,
Sultanwind road, Amritsar.
...Appellant
Versus
1. M/s On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. through its Director / Managing Director
/ Authorized Person, 8/42 Kirti nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi.
2. R.S. Agency Opposite R.S.Towers through its partner / proprietor /
authorized person, Hall Bazar, Amritsar
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 15.6.2009 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Lt.Col.Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Pardeep Rajput, Advocate LT.COL.DARSHAN SINGH (RETD.), MEMBER The appellant / complainant (Gurpreet Singh) booked a packet with the opposite party No.2 (R.S.Agency, Amritsar) to be sent through courier to Border and Immigrating Agency, HSMP PO Box 3975, Sheffield S 19 BL England, U.K. The opposite party No.2 being an authorised agent of opposite party No.1 (M/s On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd.) booked the courier vide receipt No.AWB NO.255155555 dated 17.3.2008 and received an amount of Rs.1200/- for delivery of the said courier. The complainant was assured that the packet booked by him would be delivered within a period of one week. First Appeal No.1169 of 2009 2
2. The complainant alleged that the said packet contained important visa documents along with a demand draft of 400 pounds i.e. approximately Rs.35,000/-. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties were negligent in not delivering the packet to the addressee but misled him by claiming that the said courier had been duly delivered to the said agency. The complainant further alleged that in reply to his e-mail to the said visa agency, he was informed that they had not receive the courier sent by the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties to find the status of his courier who handed over the undelivered courier to the complainant on 24.10.2008 and informed him that they were unable to deliver the said courier at its destination. Due to irresponsible and negligent action of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony. Complainant submitted that in addition to the subsequent increase in the visa fee from 400 pounds to 700 pounds, he had also lost points to qualify for the above said visa. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant lodged consumer complaint with the District Forum, Amritsar and prayed for relief as under:-
(i) Refund of Rs.1200/- charged by the opposite parties for delivery of the courier along with interest @18% p.a.
(ii) Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
(iii) Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite party No.1 filed written reply and raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was submitted that all the couriers which were daily booked by the opposite party No.2 being the franchise of opposite party no1. The information thereof was daily sent by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1, but regarding the booking of the courier of the complainant by opposite party No.2, no information was sent by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1. It was submitted that the opposite party was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.100/- of Indian Currency or 100 dollar of foreign currency to the complainant. All other allegations of the complainant were denied by the opposite party No.1 and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.
First Appeal No.1169 of 2009 3
4. The opposite party No.2 also filed its written version and submitted that it was only the agent of the opposite party No.1. It was admitted that he complainant had booked the courier in question in the name of Border and Immigration agency with Post Box No.3975. The opposite party No.1 had returned the courier of the complainant to opposite party No.2 immediately as no courier could be delivered on the post box address. The complainant had not mentioned his address or telephone number on the cover of the courier, as such, it was not possible to contact him. It was only on 24.10.2008 i.e. after a period of about 7 months when the complainant himself approached the opposite party No.2, his returned / undelivered courier was handed over to him against proper receipt. The opposite party No.2 denied and controverted all other allegations of the complainant.
5. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective version by way of affidavits and documents.
6. After going through the documents brought on record and having heard the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to:-
i) Refund of Rs.1200/- i.e. courier charges paid by the complainants.
ii) Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
iii) Pay Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
7. Hence the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum.
8. The counsel for the appellant pleaded that the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant lost points to qualify for the above said visa in the future. Also the visa fee was increased considerably from 400 pounds (Rs.35000/-) to 700 pounds (Rs.65,000/-)
9. Record has been perused and submissions have been considered.
10. Admittedly the complainant had sent packet through courier services being run by the opposite parties to Sheffield in England on 17.3.2008. Opposite party No.2 who is authorised agent of opposite party No.1 received Rs.1200/- as First Appeal No.1169 of 2009 4 service charges and issued receipt dated 17.3.2008 (Ex.C-6). The said courier did not reach its destination. When the complainant made queries about the status of the courier sent by him, he was returned the packet by the opposite parties on 24.10.2008 by telling him that they could not deliver the courier to the addressee. The reason given by the opposite parties that the courier could not be delivered on the post box address is not found very convincing. Even if it was not possible to send the courier on the post box address, the complainant should have been informed about this aspect before booking of the courier, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were not only negligent but were also deficient in providing service to the complainant for non delivery of the packet to the addressee.
11. The opposite party also did not make any effort to promptly return the packet to the complainant when the packet could not be delivered at its destination due to certain compelling reasons. It was only when the complainant made enquiries about the status of his courier that the said packet was returned to him after about 6 months.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the findings recorded by the learned District Forum and compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the Forum . The compensation awarded by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 15.6.2009 is considered adequate and justified. District Forum order do not suffer from any illegality.
13. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. The order in the case was reserved on 7.10.2009. Now the parties be communicated about the same.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt.Col.Darshan Singh [Retd.]) Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member October 12, 2009.
Davinder