A consumer court here has asked a courier firm to compensate a woman for misplacing two ‘rakhis’ sent by her to Haryana’s Hissar district and for the late delivery of another one sent to Mumbai while holding it guilty of deficiency in service.
A bench of Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Rakesh Kapoor, asked Blazflash Courier Limited to pay Rs 15,000 to Delhi resident Sudesh Kumari.
“The firm has not given any reason whatsoever as to why the consignment booked on August 14, 2013 was delivered on August 21, 2013. Normally speaking, a consignment has to be delivered by the courier within 24/48hours. The undue delay on the part of the firm in delivering the consignment at Bombay (Mumbai) is an act of deficiency on its part,” the forum said.
Regarding the consignment for Hissar, it noted that it was tampered with as instead of four, two rakhis (sacred thread) were delivered and two were found to be missing.
“No explanation has been furnished as to why this consignment was also tampered with. We, therefore, hold firm guilty of deficiency in service,” the bench members said.
Regarding firm’s claim that liability cannot exceed Rs 100 per consignment as the terms have been mentioned on receipt, the forum said the original receipts did not bear the signatures of the sender and, therefore, the term cannot be said to have been accepted by her.
“Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 10,000 as compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation,” it said.
Kumari had told the forum that on August 14, 2013, she had booked three envelopes containing rakhis for delivery to Hissar and one for Mumbai.
She alleged that the consignment booked for Hissar was found to be tampered with while the envelope booked for Mumbai was delivered after the festival of Raksha Bandhan.
She said she had registered a complaint with the courier company. However, after the firm failed to settle the claim, she approached the forum for redressal of her grievances.
The firm, however, contested the complaint before the forum and claimed that the complainant had not approached the forum with clean hands and had suppressed material facts.