Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1372/2017

JAIN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.T.D.C. COURIER PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV SHARMA

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments:  06.11.17

          Date of Decision:      08.11.17

Complaint No. 1372/17

In the matter of:

Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Through its CEO

H/o 80 Darya Ganj

Delhi.                                                                                                  …….Complainant

 

                                                            Versus

DTDC Courier Pvt. Ltgd.

Through its CEO

79, Daryaganj

Delhi.                                                                                                  …..Responent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

                The present complaint for Rs.27,55,000/- has been filed on the allegation that it agreed to get delivery of its AGM books through OP.  The OP did not deliver the same within seven days as agreed and failed to hand over proof of delivery to the complainant. The complainant handed over 30258 books to OP on 17.06.17. On 25.06.17 complainant contacted OP and informed that no book has been delivered till then.  OP replied that the same was on track and asked the complainant to go to Shahdara Office.

2.            Complainant went at Shahdara office where it was kept on being avoided on one pretext or the other.

3.            Complainant sent mail to the OP. In its response  OP sent mail showing 158 books delivered. In cross check even the members who were stated to have been delivered the books denied having received the same. One of such persons was Chairman of the Bank.  AGM meeting was scheduled on 02.07.17.  The complainant suffered lot of harassment, agony, torture prior to filing of complaint.  It has claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation for not delivering the contract and Rs. 5,000/- as expenses incurred and Rs. 2,50,000/- as cost of books alongwith interest   24% per annum.

4.            At the time of admission we asked the counsel of the complainant as to what is the basis of assessing the compensation as Rs. 25,00,000/-.  At this stage it may be highlighted that initially figure was written as Rs. 15,00,000/- which has been over written as Rs. 25,00,000/- Not only this the total was Rs.17,55,000/- which has been over written as Rs. 27,55,000/-.

5.            The counsel of the complainant submitted that complainant has about 30,000 members. Even if compensation of Rs.100/- per member is claimed the compensation would come to Rs. 30,00,000/-. We are unable to appreciate the arguments.  No such details has been mentioned in the complaint. It is only an after thought.

6.            Moreover the complainant has not alleged that meeting did not take place due to want of service of notice or that members of complainant had to incur any expenses in travel to attend the meeting.

7.            It appears that complainant has interpolated figure of compensation only to create a false jurisdiction in this Commission.

8.            The complaint is returned for presentation in District Forum after making the claim reasonable.

                Copy of the order be sent to both the parties.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                                                        (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                                                             MEMBER (JUDICIAL)