Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that on 07.08.2019 the complainant sent a Rakhi through Opposite Party No.1 at Village: Gangori, district Kurukshetra to her relatives and for this purpose, Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.120/- from the complainant as courier charges. Further alleges that after waiting of said Rakhi (Raksha Bandan), when it was not delivered to her relatives, they made telephone to the complainant and narrated the entire fact. The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.1 and asked for the non delivery of the courier containing ‘Rakhi’, but the Opposite Party did not give satisfactory reply, rather shown the receipt issued by Opposite Party No.2 whereas the complainant has booked the courier through Opposite Party No.1. Till today, said Rakhi has not been received by the relative of the complainant nor returned back to the complainant and due to that, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment.  Hence, there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts, the complainant suffered a lot. Though such loss can not be compensated in the shape of money, but still, the complainant claims a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  Vide instant  complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and deficient service besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission,  may deem fit be granted.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of her grievances.

2.       On notice,  Opposite Parties  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is  not maintainable; that  the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint;  that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. In fact, the complainant has got booked the courier on 07.08.2019, but she has not disclosed the article containing in the packet. When the complainant booked the article, Opposite Party No.1 sent the same to Professional Courier Network Limited, Bright Express No. 44-45, Ist Floor, G.T.Road, Flyover Dholewala Chowk, Ludhiana for sending the same to addressee, but due to no mentioning of District Gangori, by the complainant, it was not delivered within stipulated period. Moreover, the rules of Post and Telegraph are applicable because courier falls under the Post and Telephone Act, so this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  In nutshell, on merits, the Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.               

3.       In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her  affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4  and  closed her evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered  into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurjinder Bajaj Ex.Ops1 and copy of courier receipt Ex.OPs2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 07.08.2019 the complainant sent a Rakhi through Opposite Party No.1 at Village: Gangori, district Kurukshetra to her relatives and for this purpose, Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.120/- from the complainant as courier charges. Further contended that after waiting of said Rakhi (Raksha Bandan), when it was not delivered to her relatives, they made telephone to the complainant and narrated the entire fact. The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.1 and asked for the non delivery of the courier containing ‘Rakhi’, but the Opposite Party did not give satisfactory reply, rather shown the receipt issued by Opposite Party No.2 whereas the complainant has booked the courier through Opposite Party No.1. Till today, said Rakhi has not been received by the relative of the complainant nor returned back to the complainant and due to that, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment and  in this way, there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant and contended that undisputedly, the complainant has got booked the courier on 07.08.2019, but she has not disclosed the article containing in the packet. When the complainant booked the article, Opposite Party No.1 sent the same to Professional Courier Network Limited, Bright Express No. 44-45, Ist Floor, G.T.Road, Flyover Dholewala Chowk, Ludhiana for sending the same to addressee, but due to no mentioning of District Gangori, by the complainant, it was not delivered within stipulated period. Moreover, the rules of Post and Telegraph are applicable because courier falls under the Post and Telephone Act, so this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

8.       It is not the denial of the Opposite Parties that the on 07.08.2019 the complainant sent a Rakhi through Opposite Party No.1 at Village: Gangori, district Kurukshetra to her relatives and for this purpose, Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.120/- from the complainant as courier charges, copy of receipt of Rs.120/- issued by Opposite Party No.1-Bajaj Driving Training School is placed on record as Ex.C2. The main defence taken by the Opposite Parties is that firstly, due to incomplete address of the addressee of the courier, it could not be reached its destination. Further,   this District Consumer Commission has no  jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint because the  rules of Post and Telegraph are applicable because courier falls under the Post and Telephone Act. But we do not agreed with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties. Firstly, at the time of booking the courier, it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to duly confirm the address and district of the addressee to whom it was sent and it is not upon the complainant. If the address of the addressee was not complete on the courier, the Opposite Parties could refuse to receive the packet for sending at its destination. Moreover, in this packet, there was Rakhi (Rakhsha bandan) which was sent by the complainant to her relatives due to love and affection, and due to non receipt of courier by the addressee/ relative of the complainant, the complainant must have suffered and her feeling and sentiments must have hurt and such loss on account of mental tension and harassment, can not be compensated in the shape of money.

9.       With regard to non maintainability of the complaint before this District Consumer Commission, as per Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended upto date), the Act not in derogation of any other law – The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In case titled Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Versus Kamlender Kashyap & Ors reported in I(2008)CPJ-404(NC), it was observed that additional remedy is provided under Section 3 of the Act and jurisdiction of fora is not barred by any other clause/ remedy. Furthermore, the complainant has  referred to case law cited as Supdt of Post and Telegraph Department Circle at Solan versus M.L. Gupta, 2009(2) CLT 335 (N.C.),  wherein it has been held that:-

“5.       We have gone through the records of the case. Copy of the postal receipt dated 15.3.2004 shows that Sr. Deputy General of Accountant General (A&E), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla instead of delivering the letter to the Principal, Guru Gobind Singh Ji Senior Secondary School, Bhagani, Sirmour, delivered the letter to the Principal, Sree Guru Gobind Singh Government College, Paonta Sahib. The nomenclature of the school and college are different and as such by delivering the letter to the Principlal, Sree Guru Gobind Singh Government College, Paonta Sahib instead of Principal, Guru Gobind Singh Ji Senior Secondary School, Bhagani, there is a clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the postal department, which resulted in abnormal delay in getting the hard earned money of the employee who had retired.”

“8.       In this case, it is very clear that there has been a default and gross negligence on the part of the postal authorities in not ensuring the delivery of the postal articles to the right addressee, which has caused pecuniary loss to the complainant. Hence, we feel that the postal authorities cannot take shelter under the said provisions of the Act.”

10.     Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the contention raised on behalf of the complainant. From the act and conduct of the opposite parties it is fully established there is some dishonest intention on the part of the opposite parties because there is no evidence on behalf of the opposite parties to show reason for the non delivery of the courier/ parcel  the destination. Moreover, the opposite parties have tried to absolve themselves from their liability by taking shelter of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the provisions of the Indian Post Office Rules 1933 and Rule 66B of the Post Office Act.

11.     In view of our aforesaid discussion the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved on record and the same is not to be overlooked keeping in view the fact that  in the courier there was Rakhi (Raksha Bandan) which was sent by the complainant to her relatives and  not delivered and as such, the sentiments and feelings of the complainant  must have hurt which can not be compensated in the shape of money, because  this small Rakhi pertains full of love and affection of an Indian Hindu lady.  Keeping in view the   aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund the price of courier of Rs.120/- and also to  make lump sum compensation to the Complainant  amounting to Rs.10,000/- (ten thousands only)  on account of mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses alongwith  interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 20.08.2019  till its  realisation.  The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties jointly or severally  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant  shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

12.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:29.03.2022.