DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 103 of 02-05-2019

Decided on : 10-02-2021

Ved Parkash S/o Gobind Ram, R/o House No. 6396, Near Akalgarh Gurudawara, Mohalla Tellian Wala, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. …...Complainant

Versus

1. Airmen Courier, Opposite Railway Station, Near Ahuja Electronics, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor/Authorised Person Parveen Gandhi S/o Nand Lal

2. DTDC Express Lite Opposite Railway Parcel Godown, Near Railway underground Bridge, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor/Authorised Person Ram Kumar

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date

Quorum :

Sh. Amrinder Singh, President (Addl. Charge)

Smt. Manisha, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Madan Mohan Behal, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : None for OP No. 1

OP No. 2 exparte

O R D E R

Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President (Addl. Charge)

1. The present complaint was filed by Ved Parkash (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Airmen Courier and another (here-in-after referred as 'opposite parties').

2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that he purchased 6 T-shirts worth Rs. 4,000/- weighing 1.200 Kgs. The complainant approached opposite party No. 1 to send those T-shirts to his relative Manmohan Kapoor Mobile Centre, Shona Road, Badsha Pur, Gurgaon. The opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 250/- from complainant and issued receipt. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that said packet will be sent through opposite party No. 2 as there is tie up between the companies for sending material through each other. The opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that said goods will be delivered very shortly. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs. 250/- to opposite party No. 1 and packed the goods as per directions of opposite party No. 1. The sealed packet was handed over to opposite party No. 1 who onward handed it over to opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 gave consignment No. Z98806443.

3. As per complainant, the goods were to be delivered within day or so, but till the date of filing of this complaint, the same have not been delivered at Gurgaon. The relative of complainant visited office of opposite party No. 2 many times to inquire about parcel, but it was being conveyed to him that packet was not received by them. The complainant visited the opposite parties time and again to know about the fate of his goods, but false excuses are being made by both the opposite parties by blaming each other. None of them is ready to take responsibility and no suitable and satisfactory reply was given to complainant.

4. According to complainant on 21-4-2019, he visited opposite party No. 1 to know about his packet. The opposite party No. 1 took original receipt from him on the pretext to inquire from opposite party No. 2 about the same but thereafter he did not return the said receipt to complainant. The complainant alleged that it shows malafide intention on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complainant visited opposite parties several times and requested them to pay his claim, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to refund of Rs. 4,000/- being value of T-shirts + Rs. 250/- courier charges and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses

5. Upon notice, Sh. Ambed Kumar, AR appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and thereafter none appeared on its behalf. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it.

6. Upon notice, Parveen Gandhi, appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and filed written version. Thereafter none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 also.

7. In written version, opposite party No.1 has not disputed the claim of complainant. It is admitted that complainant visited office of opposite party No. 1 and placed order for sending the same to Manmohan Kapoor at Gurgaon. The opposite party No. 1 admitted that Rs. 250/- were charged and receipt was issued to complainant. It is also admitted that opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that packet will be sent through opposite party No. 2 as there is tie up between the companies for sending material through each other. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that it has handed over the packet to opposite party No. 2 and in case goods were not delivered, opposite party No. 2 is responsible. The opposite party No. 1 has also admitted that opposite party No. 2 took original receipt from complainant on 21-4-2019. It is pleaded that in case there is any deficiency in service, the same is on the part of opposite party No. 2.

8. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

9. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 2-5-2019 (Ex.C-1), photocopy of Courier Receipt (Ex.C-2) and photocopy of bill (Ex. C-3).

10. To rebut the claim of complainant, opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Gandhi dated 28-5-2019 (Ex.OP-1/1) and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of file.

12. Learned counsel for complainant reiterated his version as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant sent the articles to his relative through opposite party No. 1 who onward handed over the same to opposite party No. 2 as per their tie-up between the complanies, for delivering the same to consignee at Gurgaon. The opposite parties have not delivered the article/packet in question to consignee at Gurgaon. It amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

13. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

14. It is admitted fact that complainant handed over one packet to opposite party No. 1 for delivering the same to his relatives at Gurgaon. The opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 250/- and told that said packet will be sent through opposite party No. 2 for delivering the same to consignee as there is tie up between the companies for sending the material through each other.

15. The complainant has placed on record consignment note issued by opposite party No. 2 (Ex. C-2) to prove delivery of packet. The opposite party No. 1 has also admitted that courier charges amounting to Rs. 250/- were charged by opposite party No. 1 and that the packet was to be delivered to consignee by opposite party No. 2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to put forth his version. There is nothing to rebut the claim of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has also fully corroborated the version of the complainant in its written version. Thus, it is proved that opposite parties are deficient in service.

16. The complainant sent 6 T-shirts valuing Rs. 4,000/-. To prove this, he has placed on record bill dated 12-4-2019 for Rs. 3763/- (Ex. C-3).

17. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, but he has not explained that how he is entitled to this amount of compensation. It is well settled that the compensation and damages can be awarded for direct and proximate loss. It is also well settled that the Consumer Commission is not meant to enrich consumer at the cost of service provider by awarding undue compensation. The complainant has suffered actual loss to the tune of Rs. 3763/- plus Rs. 250/- paid as courier service charges.

18. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted. The opposite parties are directed to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) which includes refund of an amount of Rs.3763/- (Value of Articles) and Rs.250/- charged by opposite party No. 1 for delivery of articles.

19. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

20. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases and vacancy of posts of President & Member.

21. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced

    10-02-2021

    (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

    President (Addl. Charge)

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member