w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Rikhab Jain v/s M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- V S COURIERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141323

Company & Directors' Information:- TRACKON COURIERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL2002PTC113971

Company & Directors' Information:- B A JAIN & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21014WB1997PTC083658

Company & Directors' Information:- N S JAIN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909MH1997PTC112719

Company & Directors' Information:- V K JAIN AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055478

Company & Directors' Information:- H. V. JAIN & CO PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74140MH2009PTC189774

Company & Directors' Information:- A-1 COURIERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120MH2001PTC131283

Company & Directors' Information:- JAIN AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921UP1925PTC000288

Company & Directors' Information:- DELHI COURIERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120DL2000PTC105186

Company & Directors' Information:- F C COURIERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL1990PTC039187

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND M COURIERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120DL1997PTC085224

    Revision Petition No. 3354 of 2016

    Decided On, 06 October 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner: Salil Seth, Advocate, Neeraj Malik, Advocates. For the Respondents: Atanu Saikia, Advocate.

Judgment Text

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.4. Learned counsels were heard on 23.12.2019.5. As would be obvious, the case involves an account payee cheque sent through a courier getting lost and then getting credited to a wrong account allegedly not intended by the complainant. After hearing the counsels and appreciating the record, I am of the view that the State Commission’s order is just and reasonable.6. The State Commission has correctly invoked condition no.2 of the T & C of the courier service which provided that items such as currency, bearer cheque etc. would not be items loss of which would make the company liable to pay any claim arising therefrom. Such terms and conditions are standard and the complainant ought not to have sent a cheque in this manner through the courier. And certainly not without a declaration and without taking an insurance for the same. This was negligent on the part of the complainant. Op cannot be held accountable and liable for this. The State Commission is also correct in observing that the complainant had not impleaded either the bank or the person who got the account payee cheque credited in a different account.7. It may further be noted that it is the case of the complainant that an account payee cheque was transferred to a wrong account. On the face of it, such an occurrence is not possible. An account payee cheque, by law, can only get credited to the account of the person named and to a different account only if it so endorsed. Therefore, if the account payee cheque got credited to a different account, it is this which has to be explained by the Bank, not by the OP. There is nothing on record to show any attempt by the complainant to explain how an account payee cheque got credited to a wrong account. It is also not understood as to why the complainant has not informed the person to whose account this cheque found its way wrongly and sought it’s return. Further, as per record, the parcel was lost and the complainant was intimated. It has not been informed by the complainant as to when he came to know. Finally, there is no proof except the submission of the complainant that there was an account payee cheque of the amount stated. While it is admitted and the OP has said as much that the parcel had got lost, to claim the entire value of the cheque, which was known only to the complainant, from the courier service, with no evidence whatsoever, was an error of fact and law, by the District Forum. Having said this, there was a deficiency in service in as much as the parcel was not delivered to the designated addressee, for which the courier has to compensate the complainant;

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

however, this has to be as per terms and conditions of the contract. This is what the State Commission has done: the fee paid for the service was Rs.20/- and therefore the complainant would be entitled for the four times the amount that is Rs.80/-. The State Commission has also awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation and litigation charges. In the facts of the case, the liability of the OP is only for non-delivery, and this has been compensated as above.8. In view of the discussion above, there being no error of fact or law in the impugned order of the State Commission, the same is affirmed. Accordingly, R.P. No.3354 of 2016 is dismissed, after consideration.