Misplacement Of Parcel In Transit And Lack Of Communication, North Delhi Commission Holds Trackon Courier Liable To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Trackon Courier Private Limited liable for deficiency in service owing to misplacing the courier of the complainant which contained medicines, clothes and books. The District Commission held...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Trackon Courier Private Limited liable for deficiency in service owing to misplacing the courier of the complainant which contained medicines, clothes and books. The District Commission held that Trackon Courier not only failed to deliver the consignment, but also failed to maintain effective communication at the time of grievances raised by the complainant. Further, it failed to substantiate that the T&C for compensation were communicated to the complainant at the time of entering into the agreement.
Brief Facts:
Shri Suresh Kumar Kaushal (“Complainant”) booked a parcel with Trackon Courier Private Limited, Hudson Lane (“Courier Company”). The parcel contained medicines, clothes, and books. To the complainant’s shock, the parcel didn't reach its destination, causing hardship to the complainant and the intended recipient of the parcel. The medicines were urgently needed for the recipient’s health, and the books were for exam preparation. While the courier company charged Rs. 300/- for the service, the complainant also spent approximately Rs. 4850/- on the medicines, books and clothes collectively. The complainant contacted the courier company but received no response. Later, on raising an enquiry, the courier company admitted misplacing the parcel and mismanaging their services, but they refused to compensate the complainant for the loss. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi (“District Commission”) contending that the courier company’s actions constitute deficient service and unfair trade practices, and therefore, the courier company should be held liable for compensation for the damages.
In its response, the courier company asserted that its liability is limited as indicated in the declaration on the booking receipt, which sets a maximum claim value of Rs. 2000 for parcels and Rs. 100 for packs of documents, unless covered by special risk surcharges. The courier company argued that by agreeing to these terms, the complainant cannot later demand a higher claim amount. Further, the courier company denied the complainant's claims of sending medicines, clothes, and books and suggests that these allegations are false and intended to harass the company. The courier company questioned the logic of seeking a substantial compensation claim of Rs. 5,00,000 without obtaining transit insurance for an allegedly valuable consignment. The courier company also accused the complainant of not disclosing the consignment's contents, suppressing material facts, and failing to provide necessary documents like invoices and inter-state shipment documents. It also stated that despite its best efforts, the consignment was lost during transit between Delhi and Allahabad due to unforeseen circumstances.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission perused the booking receipt issued by the courier company. While the weight of the consignment, specified as 5 Kg, was clearly stated on this receipt, crucial details pertaining to the value and nature of the items encompassed within the parcel were conspicuously absent. Furthermore, even though the courier company acknowledged its mistake and was ready to compensate the complainant as per the amount mentioned in the terms and conditions of the company, the District Commission held that the courier company failed to substantiate its claim that these terms and conditions were effectively communicated to the complainant at the time of parcel booking.
The District Commission also pointed out the instance where the complainant sent a written communication/complaint to the courier company on September 20, 2017. This communication explicitly detailed the contents of the articles in the parcel. In response, the courier company failed to provide any form of reply or acknowledgment, leading to the conclusion that this lack of response constitutes a significant deficiency of service on the part of the courier company.
Consequently, the courier company was held liable for deficiency in service and was ordered to pay Rs. 9743/- to the complainant within thirty days from the date of the order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from date of filing of complaint till the date of the payment. A compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was also granted to the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment.
Case: Suresh Kumar vs Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No.:218/2017
Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.
Click Here To Read/Download Order