Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/269/2013

DASHRATH SONI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLAZEFLASH COURIER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/269/2013
 
1. DASHRATH SONI
11, STATEE BANK COLONY,MISSION COMPOUND SAHARANPUR,UP
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BLAZEFLASH COURIER LTD.
BLAZEFLASH HOUSE,3RD FLOOR 4E\10, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DDELHI-10055
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL, 5TH FLOOR,

ISBT, KASHMERE GATE: DELHI-110006

                                                                                      

No. DF(Central)/2015/                                                        Dated:

 

Complaint Case No.269 of 2013                        

 

Sh.Dashrath Soni

C/o Kuber Traders,

11, State Bank Colony,

Mission Compound, Saharanpur, U.P.

Through its attorney

Sh. Sandeep Kumar                                                  Complainant

 

Versus

 

  1. Blazeflash Couriers Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate Office: Blazeflash House

IIIrd Floor, 4E/10, Jhandewalan Extn.

New Delhi – 110 055.                                       Opposite Parties

ORDER

Complaint under  Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date

 

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

          The complainant has booked one consignment with the OP   for delivery to one Vipin kumar at Greater Noida.

     The consignment contained original monthly report, original travel bill, original survey bill amounting to Rs.75,000/- and equitable work order which has to be delivered at the above mentioned address.  It is alleged by the complainant that till dates the said consignment has not been delivered to its destination .  On enquiry from the OP the complainant came to know the the said article might have been lost and through their e-mail dated 13.10.2011 the OP asked to the complainant for an alternate packet.  It is further alleged by the complainant that lot of correspondence took place between the complainant & the OP. but all in vain.  Hence, this complaint.

     The complaint has been contested by the OP.   OP has filed a W.S. wherein it has stated that eh complainant has not placed on record the alleged consignment note/receipt which is the basics of the present complaint.  It is further stated by the OP that merely mentioning the consignment number in the e-mails does not prove the case of the complainant.

     The complainant has filed rejoinder to reiterate the facts pleaded in the complaint.

     The complainant has filed evidence by way of his affidavit.  He has relied upon the documents which includes the copy of the complaint made to the OP all the correspondence between the complaint & the OP  through e-mails and the legal notice dated 30.11.20111.

     Sh. Amit Gupta, Director of the Courier CO. has filed his affidavit.

     We have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have examined the record.

     The complainant has placed on record e-mails dated 11.10.2011 in which the complainant had made a complaint in respect of non-delivery of the article booked vide consignment No. 193139346 from Saharanpur to Greater Noida.  The complainant has also placed on record the e-mail dated 13.10.2011 sent by the OP in which the OP admits that the alleged consignment was not traceable and further requested the complainant to tell them the alternate of this packet.

          We find merit in the contention of the complainant and hold that the consignment were not delivered to the consignee. 

     The courier co. has drawn our attention toward the note as mentioned on the face of the consignment receipt where the liability for non-delivery or damage of the consignment has been restricted to Rs.100/-.  Beside, the liability as mentioned on the receipt, it has to be kept in mind that the complainant had suffered harassment, pain and mental agony because the gift to the addressee, were not delivered.  Consequently, the complainant is also entitled for the compensation for harassment, pain and mental agony.

     Under these circumstances, we hold the OP guilty  deficiency in service.  We allow the complaint with the following direction to the courier Co. i.e. M/s Blazeflash Courier Ltd. to comply with:-

  1. To pay to the complainant Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred Only) as a loss or damage.
  2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation for causing harassment, pain and mental agony as well as litigation charges.

     The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

 

 

     (NIPUR CHANDNA)   (DR. VIKRAM DABAS)       (RAKESH KAPOOR)                                   MEMBER                              MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.