The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Competent Authority/ The Office In-charge, First Flight Couriers Ltd., Regional Office at Jamshedpur, O.P No.2 is the Competent Authority/ The Office In-charge, First Flight Courier Ltd., Branch Office at Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Competent Authority/ The Office In-charge, First Flight Courier Ltd., Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant, being a Sub-Contractor had sent a machine part in Forklipt machine i.e. HYD Pump Shaft weighing 700 gm. of Rs.40,700/- (Rupees Forty Thousand seven hundred) only plus other charges, in toto Rs.41,415/- (Rupees Forty one Thousand four hundred fifteen) only through O.P No.2 to Secunderabad (A.P) on 23.12.2013 vide receipt No.MU0645253, dt.23.12.2013 on payment of Rs.205/- (Rupees Two Hundred five) only towards Courier charges, but the same spare part is not received by the addressee as per Telephonic message received from the addressee on 28.12.2013. Thereby, the Complainant requested O.P No.2 in the matter and also informed orally in repeated occasions, but no action is taken by O.P No.2 till date though they promised to send a new machine within a week over telephone. The O.P No.1 in response to demand as well as Advocate notice replied on 15.01.2014 mentioning that they are investigating only, but not sending new machine, which amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps to the Complainant, thus the Complainant filed this case for necessary relief. The Complainant has prayed for tracing out the valuable part along with payment of compensation jointly or severally.
3. Written version filed by O.P No.1 and 2 through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. They have also submitted that the Complainant is neither a Consumer under the O.Ps nor availed any services from the answering O.Ps and also the Complainant at no point of time had booked a consignment bearing consignment No.MU0645253, dt.23.12.2013 with O.P No.2 to Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh), which can be well established from the said consignment and it is also false to say that the Complainant had sent a machine part i.e. Forklipt machine i.e. HYD Pump Shaft weighing 700 gm. of an amount of Rs.40,700/- (Rupees Forty Thousand seven hundred) only plus other charges including in total Rs.41,415/- (Rupees Forty one Thousand four hundred fifteen) only through O.P No.2 at Secunderabad (A.P) and after completion of all formalities, the Complainant obtained a receipt vide No.MU0645253, dt.23.12.2013 on payment of Courier service charges of Rs.205/- (Rupees Two Hundred five) only. But, it is pertinent to mention here that the alleged consignment was booked by one Rakesh Sharma, Balasore bearing consignment receipt No.MU0645253, dt.23.12.2013 with O.P No.2 to Balaji Material Handling (P) Ltd., Secunderabad-9. Moreover, the Advocate for the O.Ps have replied on 31.01.2014 in response to the Advocate notice dt.09.01.2014 issued by the Complainant, where they have denied all the allegations of the Complainant, which has been duly served upon the Complainant and his Advocate. So, the Complainant is not a Consumer under the O.Ps and is not competent to initiate the present proceeding against the O.Ps, hence the O.Ps are no way liable to pay any amount either towards litigation expenses or towards harassment and mental agony to the Complainant.
4. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.P No.3, but he has neither appeared nor has filed written version. So, the O.P No.3 is set ex-parte.
5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 1986 ?
(ii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?
(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
6. In order to substantiate their pleas, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has sent Forklipt machine weighing 700 gm. worth of Rs.40,700/- (Rupees Forty Thousand seven hundred) only plus other charges amounting to Rs.41,415/- (Rupees Forty one Thousand four hundred fifteen) only to Secunderabad through O.P No.2 by paying Courier charges of Rs.205/- (Rupees Two hundred five) only vide receipt No.MU0645253, dt.23.12.2013. But, the said courier was not received by the addressee. Thereafter, in spite of several requests to the O.Ps, when no fruitful result came out, he approached to this Forum praying for giving direction to the O.Ps to trace out the valuable consignment. On the other hand, O.Ps No.1 and 2 have argued that the Complainant is not a Consumer under C.P Act, 1986 as the money receipt shows that consignment was booked by one Rakesh Sharma, Balasore to one Balaji Material Handling (P) Ltd., Secunderabad. So, from the documentary evidence, it clearly shows that the Complainant is not a Consumer and he has no locus standi to file this case and this case is also not maintainable. The Complainant is also silent when a consignment was booked by one Rakesh Sharma, how he became a Consumer without any approval of such person.
7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant is not a Consumer under C.P Act and this case is not maintainable and he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for, for which this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1 & 2 and on ex-parte against O.P No.3, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 9th day of August, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
