| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.201 of 03-06-2015 Decided on 02-12-2015 Harinder Singh aged about 61 years S/o Balwant Singh R/o # 321, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Airmen Courier Services, 1st Floor, Roxy Hotel, Railway Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory. 2.DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, having Branch Office at Railway Road, Bathinda, through its Authorized Person/Branch Manager. 3.DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Corporate Office, DTDC House, 3 Victoria Road, Banglore-560047, through its Managing Director/Authorized Person. (Deleted). .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Naveen Goyal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Jagdish Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1. Sh.A.K Yadav, counsel for opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.3 already deleted. ORDER M. P. Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Harinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Airmen Courier Services and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 12.5.2015, he approached opposite party No.1 for sending one parcel through courier. The said parcel contained some goods such as shirts, trousers, turban etc. of more than Rs.3000/-. The parcel was to be sent at Bangalore by the complainant to his son. Opposite party No.1 conveyed the complainant that it is unable to deliver the parcel at Bangalore and if he has no objection, it can send his parcel through opposite party Nos.2 and 3. He gave permission to opposite party No.1. Accordingly, opposite party No.1 sent the parcel through opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and opposite party No.2 charged an amount of Rs.750/- from him on 12.5.2015 and mentioned the value of items in the parcel as Rs.3000/-. As the complainant paid an amount of Rs.750/- to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1, as such he is consumer of opposite parties. It is alleged that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 assured the complainant that they provide best services to their customers and said parcel will be delivered to its destination within 3-4 days in the same condition in which he has handed over the same to opposite party No.2, but the parcel did not deliver by opposite parties to its destination within time. Opposite parties delivered the parcel in very bad and torn condition. When son of complainant received the parcel, he found that it is in very bad and damaged condition. There was only one shirt and one turban in the parcel and same was also in torn and dirty condition. The other items were not in that parcel. The son of the complainant complained opposite parties, but they did not give him proper reply. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and asked them reason for delivering of the parcel in bad/damaged/torn condition, but they also did not give any positive response and lingered the matter.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties and claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. It is relevant to mentioned that in view of the statement suffered by counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.3 was deleted in the array of opposite parties and notice was issued to opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it, but later on at the time of final arguments Sh.A.K Yadav, Advocate appeared and joined the proceedings on behalf of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In written version, opposite party No.1 has not disputed the claim of the complainant. It is also clarified that the service of delivery of parcel by Airmen Courier Service is not available for Bangalore. Opposite party No.1 told the same to the complainant, but as he knew the complainant, as he gave him courier service satisfyingly. The complainant asked opposite party No.1 for alternate and he suggested the complainant for DTDC courier. With the consent of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has booked his parcel through DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. situated at Railway Road, Bathinda and gave him DTDC courier receipt. It is pleaded that the service was to be provided by DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 3.6.2015, (Ex.C1); photocopies of courier consignment note, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopies of photographs, (Ex.C4 and Ex.C5); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C6 and Ex.C7); photographs, (Ex.C8 to Ex.C10). To rebut the claim of complainant, opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Om Parkash Maheshwary dated 20.10.2015, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. 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 son through opposite party No.2. The case of the complainant is fully corroborated by opposite party No.1 also. The complainant has placed on file receipt, (Ex.C2). This receipt is also issued by opposite party No.2 after charging an amount of Rs.750/-. The complainant has alleged that the articles were not delivered completely and delivered articles were in torn condition. The complainant has placed on file photographs to corroborate his averments. Opposite party No.2 has not filed any written version to controvert this claim. Of-course, opposite party No.2 put its appearance at the time of arguments, but 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. As such, complaint be accepted as prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has submitted that opposite party No.1 has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. The complainant has himself pleaded that he handed over the articles to opposite party No.2 and paid it an amount of Rs.750/-. Only allegation against opposite party No.1 is that opposite party No.2 was approached through opposite party No.1. As the complainant has availed the services of opposite party No.2, as such opposite party No.1 is not liable in any way. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that the complaint is in convenience with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 has properly delivered the articles. There is nothing to show that the articles were in torn condition at the time of delivery. As such, the complainant has failed to prove his case against opposite party No.2. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are entirely different parties. The allegations against opposite party No.1 are only that the complainant approached it for sending parcel and it conveyed him that it is unable to send parcel to Bangalore and can send his parcel through opposite party No.2. It is also allegation of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.750/- to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. The parcel was handed over to opposite party No.2. As such, as per averments of the complainant himself, he has not availed services of opposite party No.1. As nothing was paid to opposite party No.1, as such it cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party No.1 delivered parcel to opposite party No.2 and paid it an amount of Rs.750/-. The complainant has placed on record courier consignment notes, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3) to prove that he has sent articles through opposite party No.2. The complainant has also alleged that the articles were not delivered in intact condition and same were rather in torn condition. These averments are not controverted by opposite party No.2. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve this version of the complainant. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1000/- against opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is also directed to refund an amount of Rs.3000/- (Value of Articles) and Rs.750/- charged by opposite party No.2 for delivery of articles. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the interest @ 12% per annum will yield on the awarded amount till realization. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 02-12-2015 (M.P Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
