Haryana

StateCommission

A/396/2016

TRACK ON COURIER - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEP CHAND GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV SHARMA

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      396 of 2016

Date of Institution:      06.05.2016

Date of Decision :       01.06.2016

 

M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited, C-143, Community Centre, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina, Delhi-110023 through its Assistant General Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

 

1.      Deep Chand Gupta s/o Sh. Jati Ram Gupta, Resident of House No.96, Preet Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Trackon Courier Private Limited through its officer Pardeep H.O. 87, Green Park, near K.D. Hospital Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

3.      Trackon Courier Private Limited, Regional Office through Shri Vikash Dixit, Machi Bazar, near Sazi Hospital, Ambala Cantt.

Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by Trackon Courier Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3, against the order dated April 6^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint No.32 of 2015 filed by Deep Chand Gupta-complainant/respondent No.1, was accepted directing the opposite parties as under:-

“…..present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order:-

(i)      To pay a sum of Rs.65000/- on account of charges & compensation etc for harassment & mental agony in collecting the duplicate copy of 13 documents (Annexures C-3 to C-15) which have been admittedly destroyed by Op’s instead of returning the same to complainant 2 Rs.5000/- per document.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation charges including the Advocate’s fee.

Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period failing which the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in above terms.”

2.      Vinit Bindal-son of the respondent/complainant was employed as Captain in the Indian Army and posted at Tinsukhia (Arunchal Pradesh). He requested the complainant to send all his academic certificates through courier.  Accordingly, the complainant sent the certificates of his son through courier-opposite party No.1, vide receipt (Annexure C-1) dated September 30^th, 2014. The courier article was not delivered at the destination. The complainant inquired from the opposite parties but to no avail.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the courier article could not be delivered to the consignee, his address being of Armed Forces Area, where private couriers are not allowed and only Army Postal Services are allowed. The courier article was destroyed due to non-delivery to the consignee.   

4.      Indisputably, the complainant had sent the original academic certificates of his son namely Capt. Vinit Bindal, 4 Rajput Tensukhia, Arunachal Pradesh, through courier/opposite parties. It is also not in dispute that neither the courier article was delivered at the destination nor returned to the complainant. The plea of the opposite parties/appellant that the courier article could not be delivered at the destination because the address of the recipient was of Armed Forces Area, where private courier service was not allowed, is not acceptable. If this was so, the opposite parties should not have booked the courier and if it was booked wrongly, then the same should have been returned to the sender/complainant. But instead of returning the same to the complainant, they destroyed the article, which contained the original academic certificates of complainant’s son. Thus, the opposite parties/appellant have proved themselves to be negligent and deficient in service. No case for interference is made out.

5.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 01.06.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL