Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/565/2011

Parveen Bearing Shop - Complainant(s)

Versus

Blazeflash couriers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jaspal Kamboj

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 565 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 31.05.2011

                                                                                    Date of Decision:09.02.2017

Parveen Bearing Shop, near Hindu Girls College, Jagadhri, through Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of village Bhukhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..Complainant

           Versus

1. Blazeflash Couriers Limited, Agency Railway Road, Jagadhri, through its Prop./Authorized Signatory Gaurav Sharma son of Dharamvir.
2. Blazeflash Couriers Limited, Corporate Office Blazeflash House, 3^rd Floor, 2E/B, Jhandewala, Extn. New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..Respondents.

 

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

             SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

 

Present: Sh. Jaspal Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              None for respondents.

 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that on dated 05.02.2011, the complainant has sent his mobile set model bearing No. 910045500013945/910045500013952 voice V9 to Voice India Pvt. Ltd. 13/21 Puri Plaza, New Delhi through respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as Ops) vide receipt No. 295728098 dated 05.02.2011 (Annexure C-1). The cost of the mobile was Rs. 1800/- as the complainant purchased the same vide bill No. 2612 on 14.04.2010 (Annexure C-2). At the time of booking the Ops assured that the said courier will be delivered within 3 days from the date of receipt and the complainant has paid the service charges to the Ops. It has been further mentioned that till the filing of the complaint the said courier in which the mobile set of the complainant was sent, had not been delivered to the aforesaid Voice India Private Ltd. New Delhi. The complainant visited so many times to the Ops but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of courier receipt dated 05.02.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of purchase bill of the mobile dated 14.04.2010 as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that complainant is not consumer; the complaint of the complainant is vague and false, the complainant has not supplied the copy of said consignment note to the Ops, therefore, the Ops denied all the contents of the complaint and further it has been submitted that only the consignee can allege that the booked consignment has not been delivered to him but the consignee has not been impleaded as party in the present complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Even if it is assumed that the complainant had booked any packet with the Ops the same ought to have been delivered to the addressee. It has been denied that booked packet was containing the alleged item/article. The claim of the complainant is hit by doctrine of limited liability. The sender had agreed to restrict his claim of damages to Rs. 100/- only in the event of the non delivery of the packet, therefore, even the sender could not claim more amount then what was agreed upon. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Ops failed to adduce any evidence despite availing several opportunities, hence, their evidence was closed  by court order on dated 08.02.2017.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     After hearing the counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the complaint, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops as from the perusal of receipt Annexure C-1, it is duly evident that complainant might have booked a courier containing some articles in it vide receipt No. 295728098 dated 05.02.2011 Annexure C-1. In support of his version complainant filed his affidavit Annexure CW/A and also placed on file photo copy of invoice/bill of the mobile set in question Annexure C-2. On the other hand no specific reply has been submitted by the Ops. The Ops have submitted in their reply that complainant has not supplied the consignment note whereas from the date of filing of the complaint receipt of the courier bearing No. 295728098 dated 05.02.2011 Annexure C-1 is enclosed with the case file but the Ops have not submitted the proper reply mentioning therein that they have ever delivered the courier to the addressee or not. Further, the Ops have also not filed any evidence by way of affidavit or any POD vide which the said courier was delivered to the addressee. On the other hand, the complainant has also not filed any affidavit of the addressee to prove that addressee has not received the said courier containing the said mobile set as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.

7.                     Resultantly, In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that to avoid further litigation between the parties, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- as cost of old mobile set as the mobile set in question was near about year old and further to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.      

Dated: 09.02.2017.

                                                                                     (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                      PRESIDENT

                                                                                      D.C.D.R.F. YAMUNANAGAR.

 

                                                                       

                                                                                     (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                      MEMBER