Haryana

Ambala

CC/270/2011

ANKUR SIRPAUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLAZEFLASH COURIER - Opp.Party(s)

PUNEET SIRPAL

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                    Complaint Case No.    : 270 of 2011

                                                                                    Date of Institution      : 25.08.2011

                                                                                    Date of Decision         : 07.12.2016

                 Ankur Sirpaul S/o Sh. Sanjeev Sirpaul R/o 1-2, Krishna Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                   ……Complainant.

                                                                                      Versus

                    Blazeflash Courier, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. Puneet Sirpaul, Adv. for complainant.

                        OP exparte vide order dated 28.10.2013.

 

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainant sent a courier in the name of his grandfather Sh. K.P. Sirpaul from Vaknaghat, Solan (H.P.)  to Ambala Cantt vide receipt no.297065339 dated 06.04.2011  and paid a sum of Rs.50/- to the OP.  The courier containing some important documents relating to his training  and were to be deposited within time  in the company. It has been submitted that the courier not reached to its destination, an enquiry was made but no satisfactory replied received from the OP. However, the courier  received on 29.04.2011  and the same was taken under protest.  So, the complainant has submitted that because of the act and conduct of OP, he could not deposit document in time for his training and thereby suffered loss & harassment.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Op appeared through counsel and tendered reply stating that one envelope was booked against issuance of consignment note no.297065339 dated 06.04.2011 which delivered to its consignee on 29.04.2011.  It has been urged that the OP had fulfilled its contractual obligations of delivering the booked envelope however, at the time of booking the envelope,  no specific date of delivery was disclosed by the complainant, hence, there is no  deficiency in service on their part and prayed for  dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove their case, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexures CW1 alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C4 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, Op did not adduce any evidence despite last opportunity, as such, OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.10.2013.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the case file very carefully.  Complainant has placed on record receipt of courier (Annexure C-1) wherefrom it is clear that complainant has sent the courier from Solan (H.P)  to Ambala Cantt on 06.04.2011 and it has been admitted by OP that the courier had been received to its consignee on 29.04.2011.  Complainant has also placed on record document Annexure C-2 which reveals that the courier has been received by consignee under protest.  Complainant to prove the fact that he had to attend a Training of B. Tech Course  has placed on record document Annexure C-3 issued by  the Jaypee University of Information Technology, Solan.

5.                     From the above discussion, it is admitted fact on record that the courier so got booked by complainant with OP received to its consignee after 24 days whereas it should be reached within 3-4 days.  Hence, the such long delay on the part of OP itself a grave deficiency in service on the part of OP. To convert the contention of complainant, the OP has not placed on record any document in their evidence. The complainant alleged that due to non-timely delivery of the document, he could not deposit his document for training and suffered a loss but he failed to prove that non delivery of the document by the OP whether he could get the training again from the institute or not. At the time of arguments, counsel for complainant admitted that  complainant has taken the training  in  next semester.  But complainant failed to prove to what extent he has suffered the loss. However in the interest of justice, complainant is pursuing the case since 2011, he is entitled to cost of proceedings and compensation for harassment and mental agony for not receiving the documents in time. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the receipt of copy of the order:- 

(i)         To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.

(ii)        Also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of proceedings.

                        Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

                                                      Sd/-

Announced on:07.12.2016                                                                 (D.N. Arora)                          

                                                                                                                  President

 

                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                                (Pushpender Kumar)

                                                                                                                   Member