Haryana

Ambala

CC/46/2017

Vivek Bishnoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.T.D.C - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 46 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 06.02.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 11.08.2017

 

          Vivek Bishnoi son of Sh. Jay Parkash resident of House No.361-A, Punjabi      Bhag, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

 

1. D.T.D.C. Rana Market, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt through its prop./Manager.
2. D.T.D.C. Express ltd. registered office No.3, Victoria Road, Bangaluru-560047.  
3. D.T.D.C. office, Susner Dak Bungalow Road, Rajgarh-Indore-465661.

M/s Guidance Enterprises, Dak Bangla Road, Susner Rajgarh Nagar, Rajgarh- Biaora, Indore-465661.

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                          

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   OPs No.1 & 2 already exparte v/o 28.03.2017

                   OP No.3 already exparte v/o 18.05.2017.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had sent a courier of his friend Pardeep Rana containing one mobile set valuing Rs.5500/-  from OP No.3 and the said service complainant paid Rs.250 on 18.10.2016 and the courier contain consignment No. V 31253114 dated 18.10.2016 and the said mobile has not been received by the person to whom the said mobile was sent. Further submitted that on enquiry the complainant came to know from the OPs that the mobile has been delivered on mobile No.9109991060 and the signature shown on the said receipt are fake sign of the received i.e. Pardeep Rana and the said mobile has not been delivered as yet as confirmed by the complainant from his friend. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs did not appear before the Forum and OP No.1 and 2 proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 28.03.2017 and OP No.3 also proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 18.05.2017.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence.

4.                We have gone through the file & heard learned counsels for the parties.

5.                Admitted, the complainant hired the courier service of OPs on dated 18.10.2016 & also paid the courier charges of Rs. 250/-. Perusal of document Annexure C-1, the said courier contains the alleged mobile value of Rs.5500/- which was to be given by the complainant to his friend Sh. Pardeep Rana. The complainant approached to this Forum on the ground that the alleged courier was not delivered to his friend Sh. Pardeep Rana and the receipt Ex. C-3 wherein the courier has been shown as delivered and in token thereof signature of receiver was obtained, is a procured document because when the courier has not been delivered to his friend then affixing of signature by Pardeep Rana does not arise at all. He further argued that Annexure C-2 wherein courier has been shown successfully delivered is also not authentic and liable document because being prepared and managed by the OPs.

                   Undisputedly, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are lenient in nature but it does not give any liberty to take undue advantage therefore because it is a settled principle of law that the complainant has to stand his/her own legs to prove the case without taking the benefit of the OPs. Though, in the present case the OPs are exparte but this default cannot show that they are deficient in providing service. The complainant has also not placed on file any expert report to show that the signatures of Sh. Pardeep Rana were forged. Since the complainant has taken specifically plea that the delivery has been shown as successful as per Annexure-2 but he denied that the courier has not been delivered to the recipient and even on the receipt Annexure C-3, the signature of recipient was forged.  Hence, the present case is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. Liberty is granted to complainant for filing of fresh complaint on same cause of action before appropriate Court/Forum in the name of actual consumer. The complainant is at liberty for filing of fresh complaint on same cause of action before appropriate Court/Forum. The period during which the present complaint remained pending before this Forum is exempted for the purpose of limitation in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC Pg. 583. Assistant of the Forum is directed to hand over original documents if any on the file to the parties concerned on proper receipt and verification. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :11.08.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

            (ANAMIKA GUPTA )

                                                                                       Member