Delhi

North East

CC/339/2013

Dr. Sudhir Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Blazeflash Couriers Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.339/13

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

 

In the matter of:

 

	Dr Sudhir Kumar S/o Shri Kamta Nand Prasad R/o F-121/1, Dilshad Colony Delhi-110095.	Complainant
	Versus
	Blazeflash Couriers Limited Corporate Office Blazeflash House 3rd Floor, 2E/8, Jhandewalaan, X0 New Delhi-110055
	Branch Office : M-23A-2,Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.	Opposite Party
Order

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	14-11-2013
	DATE OF DECISION      :	09-10.2015

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

1. Present complaint has been filed alleging that the complainant sent medicines to his patient at Sikandrabad, North Kompally through OP- Company on 23-9-13. As per condition of delivery OP had to deliver the courier within 48 hours from the date of booking but the complainant received a telephonic call from the relatives of patient that the condition of patient is deteriorating and the medicine did not reach to them. Complainant contacted OP2 on phone. OP2 given the address of OP1 but OP1 did not respond to the telephonic calls of the complainant and kept his phone on hold. Finding no way out on    3-10-13 complainant visited the office of OP2 and found out that OP2 has no office at Sikandrabad, North Kompally and that is why the medicine sent have been received back and OP2, after calling the complainant in his office on 5-10-13, delivered the medicine back to the complainant. Regarding, complaint of non-delivery OP2 asked the complainant to fill the format of the OP2. Pleading deficiency in service and harassment on the part of OP by causing the complainant to visit OP2’s office again and again and kept him sitting for hours and not delivering the medicine at given destination, complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith litigation cost Rs. 15,000/-.
2. OP after notice by filing its reply has taken the defence that the complainant has concealed the true facts that the courier could not be delivered at the given address as the address was incomplete. It was not declared that the courier packet contains medicine and there was urgency. The packet was not insured nor the value of the contents in the packet was declared. The medicines has been received back by the complainant. As per contract between the two in case of any non-delivery on the part of OP, OP is liable only to pay Rs. 100/- as compensation/damages.
3. By filing rejoinder complainant has denied all the defences raised by the OP and stated that at the time of booking the complainant has written with black sketch pen medicine and urgent delivery because patient was serious and this medicine required within 48 hours for very important purpose in support of which complainant has filed copy of the returned envelope.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit of evidence alongwith documents.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, OP2 booked the packet for delivery on the destination given by the complainant and the same could not reach the destination and was delivered back to the complainant. The statement of the complainant that he received back the medicine from OP2 is not specifically denied by the OP. in support of his contention, that the address of the destination given by the complainant was incomplete, OP has not placed any document on record.  But copy of envelope received back, and placed on record, by the complainant disprove the allegations of OP that it was not depicted on the envelope. That it contained medicine and it was for urgent purpose.  Even after admitting that as per the contract OP is liable to pay Rs. 100/- and getting the performa filled from the complainant for redressing his grievance. OP has not even paid Rs. 100/- till date. Consequently, we hold OP guilty for deficiency in service and harassing the complainant and direct both the OPs to pay to the complainant. Jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 100/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- for the harassment alongwith Rs. 5500/- as litigation cost.
7. The awarded amount shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally within 30 days of the receipt of order. Failing which, the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @ of 12% p.a. thereon from the date of order till the date of final payment.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: - 09-10.2015

           

            (N.K.Sharma)                                              (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)           

              President                                                                Member