DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 192

Date of Institution : 21-06-2010

Date of Decision : 03-12-2010

Ashu Mittal, aged 30 years s/o Sh Khazanchi Lal r/o Surga Puri, Kotkapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1 Proprietor, Akash Ganga Courier Ltd, Nehru Shopping Centre, Faridkot

2 Akash Ganga Courtier Ltd, 784, 785 Ground Floor DB Gupta Road, Faiz Road Chowk, Karol Baag, New Delhi-110005.

...Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ashu Mittal, Advocate Ld Counsel/ complainant.

Sh. Inder Pal Advocate Ld Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER

1 Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops for not delivering notice dated 13-03-2010 sent by the complainant to AEE, PSPC, Kotkapura and for compensation to the tune of Rs 10,000/- for causing harassment, financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.

2 Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 13-03-2010, he sent a notice dated 13-03-2010 to AEE Punjab, PSPC Kotkapura through OP-1. OP-1 charged Rs 15/- for the requisite service. It is averred in the complaint that the said notice was very important and it was to be delivered within 2 days. However, to the surprise of the complainant that OP-1 sent back the same to the complainant on 25-03-2010 saying that the service is not available in the area of the addressee. In this way, Ops wasted 12 days without delivering the notice and consequently, the very purpose of sending the notice was defeated as the time for sending the same got expired. It is further averred that the office of the AEE, PSPC, to whom the notice was to be delivered is within the municipal limits of Kotkapura town. So, it is astonishing that the services of the Ops are not available in that area. It is further averred that if the destination of the notice was outside the service area of the Ops then it was the duty of the Ops not to book the courier so that complainant could arrange other means to deliver the same. It is next alleged that the complainant served a notice dt 27-03-2010 upon the OP but to no effect. It is also averred that action of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part as they have returned the notice on false excuse and they have not done their job properly. As a result of this, complainant has to face inconvenience, financial loss, harassment and mental agony for which Ops are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs 10,000/-.

3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22-06-2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4 Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties and Sh Inder Pal Advocate put an appearance on behalf of Ops and contested the claim of the complainant by way of filing written statement alleging that the Ops did not give any assurance that the letter in question would be delivered within 2 days as alleged. It is also alleged that Ops did send the letter in question immediately to Kotkapura but there the same was not received by the addressee AEE, PSPC Kotkapura. Even then, OP tried to do their job for two days. It is further alleged that complainant had given the letter in question to OP-1 at his own risk and the Ops never assured the complainant that letter in question will be delivered to addressee in all circumstances even if the same is not received by the addressee. It is next alleged that OP could take the letter to the addressee but could not compel him to receive the same.

5. We have heard the complainant in person he himself being an advocate and also counsel for the Ops and have also perused the file carefully.

6. Ld counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that he had utilized the services of OP for sending reply of notice dt 05-03-2010 Ex C-2 for recovery of Rs 3,57,573/- against the electric connection of complainant to convey that recovery has been stayed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot vide order dated 16-02-2010. However, OP did not deliver the notice to the addressee on the ground that their services are not available in the area of the addressee. They also took a stand that the requisite notice/letter was not received by the addressee despite visit of their Delivery Man twice to the addressee. Notice/letter was returned to the complainant after about 12 days which apparently amounts to deficiency on the part of the Ops.

7. Ld counsel for Ops has however, repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that all the letters received by the Ops are first sent to Bathinda where Head Office of Ops is situated and from there it is sent for delivery to the concerned addressee. If any letter is not received by the addressee the same is returned to the Ops through Head Office at Bathinda. The time for returning the letter in question was spent in the process and can not be made a ground for deficiency of service. He further argued that OP made efforts to deliver the letter at the concerned quarter twice over but the same was not received by the addressee and consequently, it was returned to the complainant under compelling circumstances. OP has no interest in delaying any letter. Therefore, there is no deficiency in the service nor any mal trade practice on the part of the Ops. Moreover, complainant has not alleged or proved any damage which has been caused to him due to non delivery of letter to the addressee concerned.

8. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. It is not disputed in this case that complainant had in fact sent a notice to the AEE, PSPC, Kotkapura on 13-03-2010 through OP-1 vide receipt of even date Ex C-3. It is also not in dispute that complainant had not suffered any damage due to non delivery of requisite notice to the addressee and for delay after which the letter /notice in question was returned by the OP to the complainant. However, deficiency in this case on the part of Ops is writ large. Complainant has not pin pointed any documents in support of the allegations in his complaint that OP-1 sent back the notice to the complainant saying that their service is not available in the area of the addressee. Therefore, the stand of the OP that notice was not received by the addressee alone requires to be probed.

9. In view of receipt dated 13-03-2010 Ex C-3 it is clear that complainant availed the services of OP-1 for sending the notice/letter to the addressee AEE PSEB City Sub Division Kotkapura. It was received back by the complainant under protest on 25-03-2010 vide receipt Ex C-5. Notice/letter remained with the OP-1 for 12 days. The stand of the OP that it did send the letter in question immediately to the Kotkapura and that the same was not received by the addressee is totally unreliable. It is neither the pleading nor any material has been brought or produced on record by the OP that the letter /notice in question was sent to the concerned quarter through Head Office at Bathinda rather in Para No 3 of the written reply OP has alleged that it had sent the letter in question immediately to Kotkapura. The stance of the OP that it was not received by OP is also unreliable as there was no idea for it to visit the office of the addressee twice over when the addressee has not received the same on the visit of their employee to the office of the addressee and still further there was no idea to keep the letter in question with them for 12 days together.

From a bare perusal of the remarks on the copy of the envelop of the notice/letter Ex C-4 it appears that the same have been given only as an after thought. Therefore, though the complainant has not proved on record any material to suggest that lapse on the part of OP has caused him loss or damage but in view of deficiency on the part of OP in our opinion complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be accepted for consolidated amount of Rs 1000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony which amount shall include payment of Rs 15/- for which the complainant had availed the service of OP. Consequently, complaint filed by the Sh Ashu Mittal/complainant is accepted and OP-1 is directed to pay Rs 1000/- to the complainant well within a period of 30 days, failing which the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the decision of this complaint till realization of the amount. In case, no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 03-12-2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar).