DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. Vivek Trivedi r/o House No.689, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Blue Dart DHL, SCO 2, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

--Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person

                        Sh. Sarju Puri, counsel for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Vivek Trivedi has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :-

i)                   To pay Rs.2.00 lacs for mental harassment and agony.

ii)                To reimburse the charges of Rs.310/-

iii)              To pay Rs.50,000/- incurred for expenses on personal cars and telephone, parcel collection and mental harassment to my friends

iv)              To pay Rs.50,000/- incurred on telephone, travel expenses, litigation charges.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 18.4.2012, he booked one parcel through the opposite party carrying his passport, Korean Visa application alongwith draft, bank statements and other necessary papers.  The said parcel was to be delivered to Shri Sharad Kumar Singh at New Delhi on 19.4.2012 before noon for onward submission before 4 o’clock.   However, when the parcel did not reach the addressee, he enquired from the opposite party and after a lot of persuasion he was told that the delivery had been delayed as it got misrouted due to wrong pin code.  The complainant was assured that the parcel would be delivered at 9:00 a.m on 20.4.2012 but again the same was not delivered.  In such circumstances, he requested his friend Shri Jitendra Lohia from Noida to collect the parcel.  Mr. Lohia collected the parcel at 11:30 and after a lot of stress and difficulty the application was submitted at 3:40 p.m.  According to the complainant, due to the deficient act of the opposite party, he had to face a lot of mental and physical harassment.

In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In the written statement filed by the opposite party, it has been admitted that the complainant booked the parcel in question with it.   However, it has been denied that the parcel was supposed to be delivered on 19.4.2012 before noon or that it delayed the delivery thereof.  It has been averred that all the queries of the complainant were properly answered and the exact status of the shipment was duly conveyed to him as and when demanded by him.  It has been denied that the complainant was informed about the misrouting of the parcel and the delivery thereof on 21.4.2012 or that it ever blamed the complainant for error in the pin code.   It has been averred that the parcel was to be delivered on 20.4.2012 itself by noon time but the complainant did not allow the delivery to be completed on schedule.  It has further been averred that on the asking of the complainant, the delivery had to be held back at the last moment and the same was delivered to Mr. Jatinder.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the documents on record including the written arguments.

5.                           Admittedly, a parcel was booked by the complainant with the opposite party on 18.4.2012 for its delivery at New Delhi.  The contention of the complainant is that it was to be delivered on 19.4.2012 but the opposite party failed to deliver the same.  On the other hand, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that the parcel was to be delivered on 20.4.2012.  Though the complainant has not placed on record any document from where it can be proved that the said parcel was to be delivered on 19.4.2012 at New Delhi, yet it is common knowledge that the delivery of courier, especially to Delhi, is generally made on the next day.   However, even if it is assumed that the delivery of the courier was to be made on 20.4.2012, even then the same was not made.  The courier was finally received by Sh. Jitendra Lohia, a friend of the complainant, from the opposite party on 20.4.2012 after persistent efforts made by the complainant.  All this proves that the opposite party was definitely deficient in service and the present complaint deserves to be allowed. 

6.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under :-

i)                   to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

ii)                to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation

7.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21.5.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER