…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Sh.Pardeep Kumar Advocate for the OP No.1.
OP NO.2 ex parte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed thepresent complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Ops on the allegations that he send a parcel to his son Mohit at Bangalore through the Ops on 4.10.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.120/- to the OP No.2 but the said parcel did not reach his son Mohit at Bangalore and he reported the matter to the OP No.2 but in vain. The complainant has alleged that the said courier was containing goods of more than Rs.1200/- and when he checked the status of the said courier then it was revealed that the same was in transit at Delhi but the said courier never reached to its destination at Bangalore. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1200/- to the complainant alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents.
2. On notice the OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant for filing of the present complaint.
On merits it was contended that the complainant never disclosed about the value of said parcel and as such the liability of the OP no.1 was to the extent of Rs.100/- only. Sh.Manpreet Singh , Manager of the OP no.1 has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contention made in the written statement.
The OP No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated: 6.2.2013.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs on the allegations that he send a parcel to his son Mohit at Bangalore through the Ops on 4.10.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.120/- to the OP No.2. but the said parcel did not reach his son Mohit at Bangalore and he reported the matter to the OP No.2 but in vain. The complainant has alleged that the said courier was containing goods of more than Rs.1200/- and when he checked the status of the said courier then it was revealed that the same was in transit at Delhi but the said courier never reached its destination at Bangalore.
However, as per contention of OP No.1 the complainant never disclosed about the value of said parcel and as such the liability of the OP no.1 was to the extent of Rs.100/- only.
5. However, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the complainant booked the parcel containing articles to be delivered at Bangalore but the said parcel did not reach at Bangalore. The complainant made several correspondence with the Ops as is evident from Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. The status of the said courier has been shown in Ex.C5 according to which location of the said parcel was at Delhi. There is nothing on the file as to what happened with the said parcel after Delhi. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence in order to infer that said parcel was ever delivered to the addressee by the Ops.
6. The argument that the liability of the Ops was to the extent of Rs.100/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law because as per the courier receipt Ex.?C6, it emerges that the OP no.2 has charged a sum of Rs.100/- on account of courier charges and a sum of Rs.20/- for covering risk @ 2% and thus a sum of Rs.120/- was totally charged by the Ops for sending the same from Karnal to Bangalore which never reached at the destination.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that risk charges @ 2% has been charged, therefore, it is evident that the complainant had disclosed that the said parcel contained articles worth Rs.1000/- and that,s why the said parcel was insured and a sum of Rs.20/- was charged for covering the risk. Therefore, in view of Ex.C6, and in view of the evidence on the file, it has to be held that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/- from the Ops and interest .
8. Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.1000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.12.2012 till its actual realization and a sum of Rs.220/- on account of mental harassment caused to the complainant and for legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 25.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Sh.Pardeep Kumar Advocate for the OP No.1.
OP NO.2 ex parte.
Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 25.3.2015.
Announced
dated: 19.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Sh.Pardeep Kumar Advocate for the OP No.1.
OP NO.2 ex parte.
Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 25.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
