BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dilpreet Singh, Age 25 s/o S.Surinder Singh, resident of House No.1695 Bagh Ramanand, Main Bazar, Amritsar.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Prakash Air Freight P Ltd.(PAFEX Nation Wide) SCO 9, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh-160023, (Register Office no.10, Koteshwar Palace, Jiva Mahale Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400069.

2]  Brijesh Sareen, Shiv Shakti Stationery And Couriers, Near Post Office, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person. 

          Sh.Sumit Ahuja, Counsel for OP-1

           OP-2 already exparte.          

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant approached OP No.2 for sending a parcel containing some new clothes and shoes to his cousin at Jhansi. The complainant showed his parcel to OP No.2, who asked him to pack it properly, which the complainant did accordingly, and gave it to OP No.2. The weight of the packet was 3.500 grams.

        It is case of the complainant that after three days, on 8.1.2011, he received the packet and found that one pair of shoes, costing Rs.2195/-, was missing from the packet and the weight of the packet was also 2900 grams only. The cousin of the complainant went to the office of OP No.1 at Jhansi, but it told him to contact their Chandigarh Office, from the where the courier was booked. When the complainant approached OP No.2 on 13.1.2011 and asked him about the parcel, he replied that it was done in a hurry. He made irrelevant excuses and asked the complainant to talk to Mr.Girish Saklani, Asstt. Branch Manager of OP No.1 in Chandigarh. It is averred that on 1.2.2011, the complainant called Mr.Girish, who told him to meet OP No.2. On 3.2.2011, a heavy conversation took place between the parties in front of Mr.Girish and complainant recorded the whole conversation in which OP No.2 offered only Rs.500/- as compensation. After that day, when complainant called Mr.Girish, he replied that he cannot do anything. Hence, this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       The OP No.1, in their reply pleaded that the transaction in question is without any declaration of goods in respect of the goods claim in the complaint, as admitted by the complainant in the purported recording in the CD placed on record, hence the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It is further pleaded that complainant has not faced any deficiency in service as the courier had been duly delivered and no item of the couriered goods of the complainant had been lost. At the time of taking delivery of the impugned shipment, no irregularities were pointed out by the consignee and admittedly the delivery slip was signed in token of receipt and acceptance of the shipment in good order. It is also pleaded that as the shipment tendered to OP No.1 by OP No.2 was delivered in intact condition to the consignee, the complaint against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, as per the terms & conditions of the consignment note, the liability of the OP No.1, if any, is limited to Rs.100/- only. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, the OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       Initially OP No.2 appeared in person and sought time to file reply/evidence. Subsequently, OP No.2 did not appear and suffered ex-parte.

4.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have also perused the record.

6.       The case of the complainant is that he had approached OP No.2 at Chandigarh, who was the agent of OP No.1, and booked a parcel/packet, which was to be delivered to his Cousin at Jhansi.  When the said parcel, containing some new clothes and one pair of shoes, was handed over to OP-2, they checked its weight and found it to be 3.500 grams.  However, when the said parcel/packet was delivered to his Cousin at Jhansi, after three days, he found that the pair of shoes, which was costing Rs.2195/-, was missing from the parcel/packet and the weight of the parcel/packet was only 2.900 grams against 3.500 grams.

7.       The Cousin of the complainant went to the office of Pafex in Jhansi, who told him that the complaint should be made at Chandigarh Office.  As such, the complainant approached OP-2 and brought the matter to their notice, but he did pay any heed to his request/complaint.

8.       The complainant again visited the office of OP No.2 where heavy conversation took place between them, which was recorded by the complainant. Subsequently, a CD of said conversation was prepared and the same is annexed with the present complaint.  The contents of the conversation recorded in the said CD have been placed on record in Black & White as Ann.C-3, wherein OP-2, though has conceded his mistake, but even then refused to pay for the loss caused to the complainant. OP No.1 has contended that their liability is limited only to Rs.100/- and the same was incorporated in the terms & conditions.

9.       However, OP No.2 despite appearing on three dates of hearing, neither filed reply nor turned up thereafter and suffered exparte proceedings. The non-appearance of OP No.2 as well as non-filing of reply, despite appearing on three dates of hearing and then suffering exparte order, shows that OP No.2 did not want to say anything in its defence or to contest the claim of the complainant and the allegations made by the complainant are true. 

10.      The contention of OP No.1 in saying that that their liability is limited only to Rs.100/- as per the terms & conditions of the consignment note, has no force, as these terms & conditions are unilateral in nature and have never been brought to the notice of complainant.  Moreover, the complainant is not a signatory to the said terms & conditions of OP No.1, therefore, the same is not binding on the complainant.

11.      The OP No.1 has also contended that there was no complaint of any loss while the delivery of the parcel in question was taken by the addressee.  This contention has no merit because when the addressee opened the parcel, only then he could find that the shoes sent in the parcel were missing. The addressee had also approached the office of Pafex in Jhansi and made a complaint regarding missing of shoes from said parcel.

12.      We have gone through the contents of the conversions as reflected in Annexure-III wherein OP-2 had admitted the loss. We are of the opinion that OPs cannot wriggle out from the deficiency committed by them while delivering the parcel in question.

13.      The objection raised by OP-1 that the matter in question being complicated in nature, cannot be dealt with by this Forum, is not sustainable in view of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which states that “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

14.      Admittedly, when the parcel was sent through OP-2, its weight was 3.500 grams, whereas on its delivery, its weight was reduced to 2.900 grams. only, which clearly proves that the parcel was certainly tempered with by the OPs.

15.      In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as discussion, we are of the firm view that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service as well as indulged in unfair trade practice.  The complaint has lot of merit and deserves to be allowed.  The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.2,195/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant.  They are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation as well as cost of litigation.

16.      This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.07.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.