LAKSHMI MEDICAL AGENCIES vs ON-DOT COURIER AND CARGO LTD

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 9. 8. 2007 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which its complaint was dismissed being devoid of merits.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant (complainant) had been dealing in medicines. It had been availing services of respondents for transporting its medicines. It had got booked consignment with the respondent vide courier receipt No. 251173232 on 30. 9. 2006 for delivering it to M/s. Gurmail Drug Store, Sherpur Byepass, Ludhiana. The consignment contained medicines worth Rs. 3,69,502. However, respondents failed to deliver the medicines booked to M/s. Gurmail Drug Store. It was next averred that respondents had told the appellant that the consignee M/s. Gurmail Drug Store had refused to accept the consignment of medicines and upon it, appellant had asked respondent No. 1- B. S. Sandhu, the Regional Manager of M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. to send back the goods to the appellant but after 3-4 days, respondent No. 1 informed the appellant that the goods had been delivered which was wrong as no consignment was delivered to the consignee.

It was further averred that on inquiry, it was revealed that respondent No. 1 had delivered the consignment to one Mr. Kapil of Ludhiana without the consent and knowledge of the appellant and thus with mala fide intention and in connivance with some other person had misappropriated the consignment worth Rs. 3,69,502. The appellant had written letter dated 28. 10. 2006 to respondent No. 1 with a copy to the manufacturer but of no use.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, the complaint dated 15. 12. 2006 was filed and claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,502 as mentioned in para-10 of the complaint. Respondents contested the complaint and stated that respondent No. 1 never took consignment and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their personal capacity were not liable for the delivery or loss of the consignment as they were the employees of the company M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. and if there was any loss of the consignment or damage to the consignment, then same was to be borne by the company and not by its employees in their personal capacity. They next stated that M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. was a company registered under the Companies Act,1956 and had a separate legal entity. They further stated that its employees had tried to deliver courier at its destination to M/s. Gurmail Drug Store but it refused to accept the same and this fact was brought to the notice of Mr. Chanderhas Gupta by the Ludhiana office of the company and it was informed to the Ludhiana office that the goods need not to be sent back and after few days, Mr. Kapil who revealed his identity alongwith duplicate bill of consignment took delivery of the goods. Mr. Kapil had also signed delivery memo. They next stated that it had further come to their knowledge that Mr. Kapil was an employee of Gurmail Drug Store. In fact at the time of giving the goods to Mr. Kapail, the Ludhiana office of the company had informed Mr. Chanderhas Gupta on telephone with regard to Mr. Kapil and it was on his assurance, the goods were handed over to Mr. Kapil. They denied other allegations and stated that the complaint should be dismissed.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 9. 8. 2007 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

NONE appeared on behalf of respondent Sh. B. S. Sandhu. It was reported that there was no B. S. Sandhu, Regional Manager in M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. and appellant did not know any other address, hence he could not be served.

WE have heard Counsel for appellant Sh. S. R. Bansal, Counsel for respondent No. 2- (Managing Director) Sh. Tarun Gupta and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that appellant booked one consignment of medicines which was to be delivered to M/s. Gurmail Drug Store, Ludhiana. This consignment was booked through M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. vide its document No251173232. The copy of the courier receipt No. 251173232 dated 30. 9. 2006 has not been placed on file. The consignment had been booked with M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. which is a limited company but the said company has not been made a party. However, Regional Manager of M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. and Managing Director of On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. have been made parties. M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. had not been sued through Regional Manager as well as Managing Director but they had been sued on personal basis. They cannot be sued on personal basis because it is not case of appellant that goods were booked by M. D. or the Regional Manager. It is further stated in the letter dated 1. 11. 2006 which the appellant had given to the Supdt. of Police, (City-I), Ludhiana by way of complaint that the goods were booked through M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. Vide their document No. 251173232 and on 10th of the month they had received a call from On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. that M/s. Gurmail Drugs Store had refused to accept the goods on which they told them to send back the consignment to them but after three days, they were informed that the goods had been delivered. It next stated that on 27. 10. 2006 a representative of manufacturing of goods in question told them from Ludhiana that the goods had not been delivered to Gurmail Drugs Store and on inquiry on 28. 10. 2006 one Mr. Lucky of On-Dot Courier told them that the goods had been delivered to one Mr. Kapil, an employee of Zenotech Labs. Mr. Kapil was neither the consignor, nor, the consignee of the goods in question. There is no documentary evidence on the file that appellant had authorized Mr. Kapil to accept the goods either on behalf of the appellant or on behalf of the consignee M/s. Gurmail Drugs Store.

It is true that M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo has not been made a party but strict rules of CPC are not applicable to complaints before the Consumer Fora. The very fact that Regional Manager and Managing Director of On-Dot Courier and Cargo had been impleaded shows that they had been impleaded on behalf of On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. There is no documentary evidence that appellant had authorised Mr. Kapil to receive delivery on behalf of M/s. Lakshmi Medical Agencies or M/s. Zenotech Laboratories Ltd. or consignee. In fact the delivery has been made to a third person namely Kapil and he was not authorised to accept the goods. Retail invoice placed on file along with price of goods shows that the goods were worth Rs. 3,69,502. The run sheet of On-Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd. dated 12. 10. 2006 which is at page 27 of the file shows that at serial No. 8 it is mentioned that the consignee was Gurmail Drugs Store but the delivery has been made to one Kapil. No identification of the said Kapil has been made. No letter has been produced on file to show that he had been authorised by Sh. Chanderhas Gupta, proprietor of the appellant to accept the goods on behalf of the appellant. Thus, respondents had not been able to prove that the goods which they had booked on behalf of the appellant were properly delivered to the consignee or returned to the appellant. Thus, certainly respondents had committed deficiency in service to the tune of Rs. 3,69,502 for which respondents are liable to pay. The amount of compensation shall be paid by M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd.

THE District Consumer Forum had wrongly and illegally dismissed the complaint by stating that the facts pleaded were complicated and required detailed and exhaustive evidence and could not be decided by the Fora. This is a simple case of deficiency in service committed by the courier agency i. e. M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. as it failed to deliver goods worth Rs. 3,69,502 to the proper person. The appellant had also served legal notice dated 1. 12. 2006 to the Regional Manager of M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. before filing the complaint and prior to it, had sent complaint to M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. dated 28. 10. 2006 for delivering the goods or making payment of the value of the goods but respondents did not bother.

HENCE, appeal is accepted with costs of Rs. 10,000 and M/s. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd. through respondents Sh. B. S. Sandhu, Regional Manager and Managing Director are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,69,502 to the appellant. The said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p. a. after one month from the date of booking i. e. 20. 9. 2006 till payment. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed.