Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/10/68

Blaze Flash Courier - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adhyaksh, Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Uthan. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 07.11.2009 passed in C.C.No.16/2007 by the District Commission, Satna)

 

BLAZE FLASH COURIER & ORS.                                                                     …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

                 

ADHYAKSHA, AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA UTTHAAN

SANGTHAN, SATNA & ORS.                                                                             …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                     

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR                       :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

06.10.2020

 

          Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.

            None for the respondent no.1 and 3.

            Shri Manoj Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Central Bank of India.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :            

                         This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.16/2007 whereby the District Commission has held that the appellant courier company has committed negligence and deficiency in service in not delivering the courier envelope to the receiver Kuldeep Mandal at New Delhi.

2.                Having gone through the evidence on record and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.2, we are of the view that the District Commission has committed error in awarding Rs.10,000/- to the respondent no.1/complainant for the loss of demand draft of Rs.10,000/- whereas it is evident from the letter dated

-2-

16.02.2010 written by respondent no.3 Union Bank of India that demand draft in question was actually delivered to the receiver and was encashed on 11.09.2006, same is also clear from paragraph 6 of the impugned order.  Thus it is clear that the demand draft was encashed.

3.                However, it is borne out from the record that there is delay in delivery of courier envelope to the receiver by the appellant, in the circumstances under the said head of deficiency in service if Rs.5,000/- is awarded by the District Commission to be payable to the respondent no.1/complainant by the appellants, the said part of the order cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous warranting interference. However, interest part awarded by the District Commission @ 12% p.a. appears to be on higher side and it is modified to 6% p.a.

4.                In the circumstances, the order regarding payment of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service and cost is maintained. The interest awarded is reduced to 6% p.a. Rest part of the order regarding payment of Rs.10,000/- is set-aside.

5.                The impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent.  With the aforesaid modification appeal stands disposed of.

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)               (Prabhat Parashar)           

                          President                                          Member