View 141 Cases Against Blue Dart
Sandip Kumar filed a consumer case on 15 Jan 2018 against Blue Dart Centre in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/433/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Jan 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 433
Instituted on: 01.09.2017
Decided on: 15.01.2018
Sandip Kumar S/o Shugan Kumar, resident of Ward No.3, Master Colony, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Blue Dart Centre, AC Market, Near Police Station, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur through its Manager.
2. Blue Dart Centre Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 099 through its MD.
3. The person who had received the parcel on behalf of the complainant to be disclosed by OPs.
4. NSDL e-Governance Infrastructure Limited, Tax PAN Service Unit, 5thFloor, Mantri Sterling, Plot No.341,Survey No.997/8,Model Colony, Near Deep Bungalow Chowk, Pune-411 016 through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Tarun Goyal, Advocate.
For OPs No. 1 &2 : Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.
For OP No.4 : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Sandip Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the service of the OP number 4 by online applying for a PAN card on 13.6.2017 by paying the requisite fee of Rs.110/- and as such sent the documents by registered post on 15.6.2017. The grievance of the complainant is that despite paying the fee and sending the documents to the OP number 4, the PAN card in question was not delivered to the complainant. Though the OP number 4 sent the PAN card in question through OPs number 1 and 2, but the same was never delivered to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to deliver the PAN card in question and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that OP number 4 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against exprte.
3. In reply filed by OP number 1 & 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the car in question has already been delivered to the complainant on 12.7.2017. On merits, it is stated that as per the records of the company, the consignment was booked on 10.7.2017 from Mumbai and the same was delivered to the agent of complainant namely Hans Raj at the given address. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit and Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of receipt and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact between the complainant and the OP number 4 that the complainant applied for a PAN card, as is evident from the copy of receipt on record as Ex.C-2 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.110/-. It is also not in dispute that the PAN card in question was sent to the complainant through OPs number 1 and 2 vide bill number 34406239346 dated 10.7.2017 by Op number 4 from Mumbai. The case of the OPs number 1 and 2 is that the same has already been delivered to the complainant through one Hans Raj, but the case of the complainant is that the same was never delivered to the complainant. It is now proved on record that the card in question was not delivered to the complainant.
7. In the present case, it is made clear that the complaint against the OPs number 1 and 2 is not at all maintainable as the complainant has not availed any services directly by paying the requisite fee as such he is not a consumer of the Ops number 1 and 2. Now, coming to the point of non delivery of the PAN card in question, we feel that the OP number 4 is duty bound to deliver the PAN card to the complainant as the OP number 4 has taken the requisite consideration of Rs.110/- as is evident from the document Ex.C-4 on record which shows that an amount of Rs.110.45 was debited to the account of the complainant on 14.6.2017. As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP number 4 is directed to deliver the duplicate PAN Card to the complainant.
8. In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 4 to deliver the duplicate PAN card to the complainant. We further direct OP number 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
January 15, 2018.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.