Haryana

Rewari

CC/514/2012

Fateh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Blaze Flash Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Yudhbir Singh

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,   REWARI.

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No: 514 of 2012.

Date of Institution:   24.12.2012.

Date of Decision:     30.1.2015.

 

Fateh Singh son of  Shri Vatan Singh resident of   H.No.O-2 Garments  Employees Society  sector-3, Bye-pass Rewari, Tehsil and   Distt.  Rewari. 

 

                                                                         …....Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1)  Blazeflash Courier Ltd. Authorized agent Rewari Mange Lal branch Manager, shop no. 75, Kamla Palace Rewari, near  Dharuhera  Chungi Rewari, Tehsil and   Distt. Rewari,

2)     Blazeflash Courier Ltd.  Corporate Office, Blazeflash House, TTT Floor, 2E/8, Jhandewala   Extension New Delhi-55.

 

                                                                 ….…Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12  of Consumer Protection Act

 

 

        Before:  Shri  Raj  Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT

                       Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER

                      

Present :         Shri  Yudhbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                       Opposite parties exparte.

                      

                                           ORDER

 

 Per  Raj Kumar President

 

                             Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn  of  details, is  that the   complainant who is having a vehicle no. 47-A-4213 got its permit renewed and sent the same to Shri Boota Singh quarter no.516, Police Colony, Jamalpur, near Mohina Resort Chandigarh Road Ludhiana, Punjab on 27.11.2012  via  courier services of the opposite parties but the same could not reach the addressee as a result of which the vehicle could not be plied resulting into financial loss.  On enquiry, the envelope was returned without any rhyme and reason; hence this complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 90,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/-.

2)                         In reply, it is alleged that one packet was booked against issuance of consignment note no. 297828037 dated 27.11.2012 for delivery which could not be delivered because of incorrect address of the consignee, hence it was returned to the sender on 18.12.2012.  It is also alleged that  the complainant while taking back the undelivered envelope also surrendered the original sender’s copy of consignment note without any protest.  All the other contents have been denied with the prayer of dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3)                         We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through both oral as well as documentary evidence available on the file. 

4)                         It is not  disputed that the complainant has booked a

consignment containing permit with the opposite parties for delivery which admittedly could not be delivered because of incorrect address given by the complainant.  It is also not disputed that on the enquiry made by the complainant, the  undelivered  parcel was retuned back on 18.12.2012.  It is obvious that the complainant was deprived of the permit  from  27.11.2012  to 18.12.2012.   He is alleging that for want of permit , he could not ply the vehicle resulting into loss of about Rs. 3,000/- per day.  In  the reply filed by the opposite parties, they have stated that they are ready to pay Rs. 100/-  back if the complaint is allowed but in terms of the undertaking and contract entered upon by the complainant, the liability is restricted only to Rs. 100/-.   A perusal of Ex. C-6  is the envelope of the parcel which was to be delivered by the opposite parties.  It clearly bears the signature of the addressee and mobile number of the complainant.    It was the  duty of the opposite parties if it is believed that the address was incorrect,  to immediately intimate  on mobile and to ascertain the correct address.    A perusal of envelope goes to show that full address is given  and there is no  ambiguity in the address.  Thus, the opposite parties were negligent in handling the important document which resulted in considerable harassment and loss to the complainant.    Thus, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 100/- in view of the limited liability of the opposite parties.  Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and loss suffered by the complainant  for not plying the vehicle, he is awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs. 5500/- against the opposite parties.   Let compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the awarded amount shall fetch penal interest @ 12% p.a.  from the date of filing of this complaint till payment.  

Announced

 30.1.2015.                         

                                                                    President,

                                                          Distt. Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Rewari.

 

                    Member, 

             DCDRF,Rewari.