Tirtha Traders, Authorized distributor of

Andslite & Andsbag, through its Managers Sales Bhardwaj Niwas, Lane 1, Sector-II,

Opp. Post Office, New Shimla, H.P.



… Complainant.



Versus



1. Blazeflesh Courier, Ltd.,

Balson House, near Ouckta Niwas,

Upper Chowk, Khalini, through its Area Manager.



2. Jagdamba, Trading Co.

In front of English Wine Shop, Mehre,

Badsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

Through its Proprietor.



…Opposite Parties



O R D E R:

Per, Charanjit Singh, Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he sent a, parcel to the OP No.2 through the OP No.1, which was containing led torch light, BL-2 valuing Rs.13,821/-. He further avers that the OP No.1 did not deliver the consignment to the consignee, i.e. OP No.2. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 in not delivering the consignment to the consignee and accordingly relief to the extent, as detailed, in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP in its written version to the complaint admitted the booking of the consignment and further contended that in the normal course, the consignment must have been delivered to the consignee. It is further contended that since the record pertaining to the delivery status of the impugned consignment, due to paucity of space, has already been destroyed and for the loss of consignment, the liability is restricted/limited to Rs.100/-, as per the consignment note. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

4. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP No.1, in, not having delivered the consignment to the consignee, i.e. OP No.2. The OP No.1 resist, the, above grievance and in a detailed reply, have, contended that the consignment must have been delivered to the consignee, but in support whereof, no proof has been annexed. Obviously, the said fact of non-delivery of the concerned goods to the consignee hence, comes to, be substantiated especially, when the OP No.1 failed to produce the proof qua delivery of the consignment.

5. The complainant claims compensation for non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee, to the tune of Rs.13,821/-, the value of the consignment, yet, the complainant has not declared the value of the goods/consignment at the time of booking, as is evident from Annexure C-1, which is the copy of the booking order. However, the OP No.1, has specifically contended that theirs liability is restricted/limited to Rs.100/-, and this fact is also evident from the bare perusal of terms and conditions of the booking order Annexure C-1. Hence, the complainant cannot claim or cannot be awarded compensation over and above the terms and conditions, executed interse the parties.

6. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed to the extent that the OP No.1 shall indemnify the complainant, to the extent of Rs.100/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, whereas the copy of this order shall be sent to the OP No.1 through UPC for compliance. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Tirtha Traders, Authorized distributor of

Andslite & Andsbag, through its Managers Sales Bhardwaj Niwas, Lane 1, Sector-II,

Opp. Post Office, New Shimla, H.P.



… Complainant.



Versus



1. Blazeflesh Courier, Ltd.,

Balson House, near Ouckta Niwas,

Upper Chowk, Khalini, through its Area Manager.



2. Jagdamba, Trading Co.

In front of English Wine Shop, Mehre,

Badsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

Through its Proprietor.



…Opposite Parties.







O R D E R:



This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he sent a, parcel to the OP No.2 through the OP No.1, which was containing led torch light, BL-2 valuing Rs.13,821/-. He further avers that the OP No.1 did not deliver the consignment to the consignee, i.e. OP No.2. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 in not delivering the consignment to the consignee and accordingly relief to the extent, as detailed, in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP in its written version to the complaint admitted the booking of the consignment and further contended that in the normal course, the consignment must have been delivered to the consignee. It is further contended that since the record pertaining to the delivery status of the impugned consignment, due to paucity of space, has already been destroyed and for the loss of consignment, the liability is restricted/limited to Rs.100/-, as per the consignment note. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

4. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP No.1, in, not having delivered the consignment to the consignee, i.e. OP No.2. The OP No.1 resist, the, above grievance and in a detailed reply, have, contended that the consignment must have been delivered to the consignee, but in support whereof, no proof has been annexed. Obviously, the said fact of non-delivery of the concerned goods to the consignee hence, comes to, be substantiated especially, when the OP No.1 failed to produce the proof qua delivery of the consignment.

5. The complainant claims compensation for non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee, to the tune of Rs.13,821/-, the value of the consignment, yet, the complainant has not declared the value of the goods/consignment at the time of booking, as is evident from Annexure C-1, which is the copy of the booking order. However, the OP No.1, has specifically contended that theirs liability is restricted/limited to Rs.100/-, and this fact is also evident from the bare perusal of terms and conditions of the booking order Annexure C-1. Hence, the complainant cannot claim or cannot be awarded compensation over and above the terms and conditions, executed interse the parties.

6. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed to the extent that the OP No.1 shall indemnify the complainant, to the extent of Rs.100/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, whereas the copy of this order shall be sent to the OP No.1 through UPC for compliance. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.