CONSUMER AS KING - Courier company should return consignment if not delivered

Jehangir B Gai





Courier services are more popular in urban areas, but of ten lack the profes sionalism of the postal department.Case Study: Captain Vinit Bindal of Indian Army, was posted at Tinsukhia in Arunachal Pradesh. He wanted all his original academic and technical qualification certificates. His father, Deep Chand Gupta sent them through Trackon Couriers who charged Rs 43.
When the consignment was When the consignment was not delivered even after a week, Gupta inquired and also sent a written complaint, which yielded no response. Gupta inquired with the educational authorities about issuance of duplicate certificates. He was informed that duplicates could be issued at a charge of Rs1,500 per document, and would take time too. Gupta filed a complaint against Trackon Courier before the district forum, alleging negligence and deficiency in service.He sought a direction to the courier company to return the original documents which had been couriered. He also claimed damages of Rs 70,000.
Trackon contested the case, stating that the consignment could not be delivered as Bindal was located in the Armed Forces area where private couriers are not allowed. The courier claimed that at the time of accepting the booking of the consignment, Gupta had stated that his son would collect the consignment from Trackon's office at Itanagar within 30 days. Since Bindal had failed to collect it within the stipulated period, Trackon said that it had destroyed the consignment.
The Ambala district forum observed that the courier had failed to produce any evidence to show that the consignment had been booked on the condition that Vinit would have to collect it from their office. So it refused to accept Trackon's defence.The forum also observed that Trackon's reply made it evident that the company was fully aware that the consignment had to be delivered in a military area where courier entry was prohibited. The Forum held that the acceptance of the consignment for delivery in a non-serviceable location constituted an unfair trade practice. So it ordered the courier company to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs 65,000 towards expenses for obtaining duplicates of 13 documents and for causing harassment and tension. Additionally , litigation costs of Rs10,000 were also awarded. Compliance of the order was to be made within 30 days, else it would carry 12% interest for the period of delay.
Trackon challenged this or der in appeal. The Haryana State Commission observed that the courier ought to have returned the consignment to the sender as the delivery address was located in a nonservicable area.The state commission dismissed it.
The courier company challenged these orders through a revision petition. The National Commission questioned the co urier company why it had not responded to Gupta's complaints. The courier company was also questioned why the consignment was not returned to Gupta even though his address was available with the company .
So the National Commission, through its order of September 14 delivered by Rekha Gupta for the Bench along with Anup Thakur, held that the courier company had rightly been held liable for negligence, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice. the order passed in Gupta's favour was upheld.
Conclusion:
A courier must appreciate that a consignment can contain something valuable, and must return it to the sender if it cannot be delivered.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)

Source::: Sep 19 2016 : The Times of India (Mumbai). p.09.

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31804&articlexml=CONSUMER-AS-KING-Courier-company-should-return-consignment-19092016007030

Online buyer can lodge complaint at the place where transaction was done

Jehangir B Gai TNN 

    For online purchases, a consumer can file complaint at the place where he made the transaction. 
    Background: A complaint has to be filed either where the cause of action arises or where the trader or service provider conducts business. Where the consumer resides is irrelevant. For online transactions, the Meghalaya state commission has given a path-breaking ruling. 
    Case Study: Ram Gopal Agarwal and his wife had to travel from Delhi to Jaipur. Sitting in his office at Shillong in Meghalaya, on March 24, 2006, Agarwal made internet bookings for two tickets on Air Deccan’s flight departing on April 4, 2006. The payment was made through credit card. 
    Prior to boarding the flight in Delhi, the Agarwals checked in two bags for which they were given baggage tags. When they alighted at Jaipur, their baggage was missing. They contacted the ground crew, who displayed an unconcerned attitude, despite the Agarwals being elderly. The Agarwals then lodged an FIR at Jaipur’s Sanganer Airport police station. It was only then that the airline staff issued a missing baggage letter. The Agarwals had to spend Rs 25,000 on new clothes and other necessities. Their schedule too was upset as they were busy registering grievance. 
    On April 24, 2006, part of the baggage was traced at Guwahati, while the rest was found after two moths, on June 3, 2006, at Guwahati. Agarwal requested the airline to deliver the baggage to him in Shillong, but it refused to do so, forcing him to travel to Guwahati at his own expense and waste two days to claim the baggage, which was damaged and weighed 13 kg less than when it was checked in. 
    Aggrieved, he lodged a complaint before the Shillong district forum. The airline challenged the jurisdiction of the forum to adjudicate a dispute for travel on the Delhi-Jaipur sector. On merits, it contended there was no deficiency in service as an all-India tracer had been promptly sent to all airports to find the baggage, and it had been handed over at Guwahati as soon as it was traced. 
    The forum overruled the airline’s objection and concluded there was deficiency. It awarded the Agarwals Rs 71,558 towards purchase of new clothes and necessities, cost of travelling to Guwahati for baggage, loss due to shortfall in baggage weight, mental agony compensation, legal fees and costs. Interest on this amount at 12% from the date of the complaint was also awarded. 
    The airline appealed to the Meghalaya state commission. The main plank of argument was challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the forum since the airline didn’t have an office in Shillong. It contended that the complaint could be filed at Delhi or Jaipur or Guwahati, where the baggage was traced. 
    In the December 7, 2013 order, delivered by member Ramesh Bawri for the bench along with Justice P K Musahary, the commission observed that there was no controversy about the baggage having been found in damage condition after two months, which clearly established deficiency in service. The compensation awarded by the district forum under various heads was reasonable and justified. 
    The commission noted that the main controversy was in respect of territorial jurisdiction, which requires in-depth consideration as the booking was done via internet. 
    Considering the provisions of the Contract Act and the Information Technology Act, when an air ticket is booked through internet, the ticket is sent by e-mail. The booking request would be an offer, the emailing would be acceptance. So, the contract for purchase of the air ticket would be taken to be have been made at the consumer’s place of residence, where the acceptance of the contract is communicated. 
    The Agarwals reside in Shillong from where they had done their booking via internet. The tickets were despatched by e-mail and the acceptance was communicated in Shillong. The commission, accordingly, concluded that part of the cause of action had arisen in Shillong and the complaint could be filed there. 
    Impact: This judgment empowers the consumer is the digital age of e-commerce.
    (The author is a consumer activist andhas won theGovt.of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e mail is jehangir.gai.articles@hotmail.com)


Source::: The Times of India, 10-02-2014, p.10,   http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2014/02/10&PageLabel=10&EntityId=Ar01001&ViewMode=HTML