RIKHAB JAIN Vs. TRACKON COURIERS PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(NCD)-2020-10-22
NCDRC
Decided on October 06,2020

Rikhab Jain Appellant
VERSUS
Trackon Couriers Private Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Anup K. Thakur, j. - (1.) Under challenge in this Revision Petition No.3354 of 2016 is the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (State Commission, hereafter) dated 28.07.2016. Vide this order the State Commission had partly allowed the appeal of the respondent/OP-M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. (OP hereafter) against the order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (District Forum, hereafter). In turn, the District Forum had directed the respondent/OP to make a payment of Rs.88,500/- with 9% p.a. from the date of booking i.e. 27.9.2014, till realization along with Rs.5500/- for litigation expenses.
(2.) Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant-Rikhab Jain (complainant hereafter), as per his plaint, sent a packet containing account payee cheque no.061868 for Rs.88,500/- through the OP. This was not delivered to the addressee. The cheque amount however was transferred from the complainant's account. Alleging this to be due to negligent act of the OP, which caused a monetary loss of Rs.88,500/- to the complainant, he filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum. This was contested by the OP. OP admitted the consignment booked on 27.09.2014 but denied that it contained an account payee cheque. It submitted that some consignments did get misplaced and the same were taken for delivery on 29.09.2014 and a report was also lodged with the Delhi Police on 30.09.2014. The District Forum however accepted the complaint vide order dated 9.10.2015 and granted relief (supra). The State Commission, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, partly allowed the appeal reasoning as below: "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is evident from the affidavits and other documentary evidence produced by the OP-appellant that the complainant had not declared the contents of the packet nor did he get the same insured for Rs.88500/. for which the account payee cheque is alleged to have been kept in the packet. Further, the terms and conditions of the courier service clearly provided that no such contents like blank or account payee cheque shall be sent through courier. Conditions No.2 is reproduced below:- "Trackon shall not entertain any claim of articles such as Currency. Bearer Cheques, Hundies, Rukka, Bearer, Blty, Investment certificate, Lottery Tickets, Postal Articles and / or similar other documents, Gold, slilver, Jewellery, Precious Stones, liquld, semi liquld, perishable or fragile goods, narcotics and / or other items which are prohibited and / or by law shall not be couriered". Further, the complainant did not implead either the bank or the person who actually got the account payee cheque credited in favour as party to the complaint, nor did he file any affidavit to that effect. Therefore, the appellant courier company cannot be held liable for the ultimate loss suffered by the complainant, as its liability is only limited to the extent of the amount of fee charged from the complainant. In the present case, the complainant has himself said in the opening para of his complaint that he paid Rs.20/- in cash while getting the courier booked. Therefore, at best the appellant -OP is liable to pay four times the amount paid by the complainant as mentioned in the Terms and Conditions."
(3.) Hence, this revision petition by the complainant seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 28.07.2016 (supra) and a direction to the OP to pay Rs.88,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damage, compensation and legal costs.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.