REKHA GUPTA

            Revision Petition no. 2472 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 01.06.2016 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 396 of 2016.

2.     The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that his son Shri Vinit Bindal posted as a Captain in Indian Army at Tinsukhia (Arunachal Pradesh), requested the respondent to send all his original academic and technical qualification certificates through courier. The respondent on 30.09.2014 approached the petitioner/ opposite party for sending the documents. Petitioner sent all the original certificates including DMC’s vide courier receipt no. 416634987 to Tinsukhia and charged a sum of Rs.43/-. The respondent informed his son accordingly that he may receive the said courier within 2/3 days. When the said courier was not received by Shri Vinit Bindal at Tinsukhia after one week of its sending, the respondent enquired from the petitioner and he was assured that the documents would reach within one or two days. On 08.10.2014, the respondent again visited the office of the petitioners but all in vain. Thereafter, the respondent submitted an application to petitioner on 11.12.2014 stating therein that petitioner had failed to deliver the courier at the destination which was containing DMC’s of matriculation, senior secondary (10+2) B Tech (8) semesters and all original certificates thereof including Degree of B Tech. Respondent has further stated that he had enquired from the school/ college authorities for issuance of duplicate certificates but they informed the respondent that about Rs.1500/- would be incurred in obtaining each document and it would also take time. Thus, the respondent alleged that petitioners were admittedly negligent and deficient in providing proper services to him and thereby caused great mental agony and harassment to the respondent and his son. Hence, he sought relief as per prayer clause has been preferred.     It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and the OP be directed to produce the original certificates. Detailed mark cards and original degree of B Tech to the complainant and bear the expenses of Rs.70,000/- plus interest on the amount and redress of grievances of the consumer and complainant.

3.     The petitioners admitted that the respondent booked a consignment with them on 30.09.2014 for Tinsukhia (Arunachal Pradesh) but the same could not be delivered to the consignee as the address was in an Armed Forces Area where private couriers were not entertained and only Government Postal services were allowed by addressing consignments to Army Post office. At the time of booking, the respondent had stated that there was nothing urgent in the consignment and in case it was refused at the destination, then his son would collect it from the office of petitioner at Itanagar within 30 days and thus it was specifically told to the respondent that in such event, the consignee would have to collect the consignment. On such mutual understanding, the said consignment was booked and despite various requests to the respondent to inform the consignee to collect the consignment, the same was not collected and finally, the petitioner disposed it off as ‘destroyed’ consignment. In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.

4.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 06.04.2016, observed as under:

“After hearing both the parties and appreciating the documents placed on record, we are of the view that it is an admitted case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs since they failed to deliver the consignments to the son of complainant in whose name it was booked for delivering at Tinsukhia (Arunachal Pradesh). Further, it is also a clear cut example of unfair trade practice committed by OPs because if they were well aware as per their version that the consignment could not be delivered at its destination being Military Area, then why they booked the same which casts deficiency on the part of OPs from the very beginning, i.e., from the date of the consignment. Besides it, OPs have not placed on record any evidence/ document wherefrom it is proved that the consignment was booked conditionally subject to receiving of the same by consignee himself from the office of OP at Itanagar or copy of any notice or letter written by OPs to complainant at Ambala to inform his son (consignee) to collect the courier in dispute whereas complainant has placed on record an application dated 11.12.2004 made to OP no. 2, qua non-delivery of courier at Tinsukhia (Arunachal Pradesh) and photocopy of DMC’s certificates and B Tech Degree, i.e., 13 documents which has been admittedly destroyed by OPs. So, in these circumstances, we have no option except to allow the present complaint and as such 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:

1. To pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- on account of charges and compensation etc., for harassment and mental agony in collecting the duplicate copy of 13 documents which have been admittedly destroyed by OPs instead of returning the same to complainant @ Rs.5000/- per document;
2. 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”.

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal being devoid of merits observed as under:

“Indisputably, the complainant had sent the original academic certificates of his son namely Capt. Vinit Bindal, 4 Rajput Tinsukhia, 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 receipt 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/ appellants have proved themselves to be negligent and deficient in service. No case for interference is made out”.

6.     Hence, the present revision petition.

7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner had informed that they could not deliver the article in an Army area and they would carry the article to Tinsukhia but it would have to be collected in person by the respondent/ complainant’s son. As he did not collect the article within 30 days it was destroyed along with its contents. He further argued that the State Commission erred in not setting aside the order of the District Forum despite the fact that the respondent had not produced any material evidence to establish the claim against the petitioner.

8.     We have gone through the record. It is seen from the courier receipt placed on record that though the article was addressed to Captain Vinit Bindal 4 Rajput, Tinsukhia APO, the article was not delivered to the Army post office but kept with the petitioner. Counsel could not explain that when the article was not collected within 30 days the reasons why it was not returned to consignor Mr D C Gupta, especially when the name and address was available with them and in fact mentioned on the courier receipt. They further could not explain why the article was disposed of as a destroyed consequence particularly when the consignor kept making queries regarding its delivery.

9.     We agree with the State Commission that, if the plea of the petitioner is believed that the article could not be delivered at the destination because the address of the recipient was of armed forces, where a private courier services are not allowed, the petitioner has failed to explain the reason why they booked the article and accepted it for delivery. They further compounded their mistake by destroying the article which contained the original academic certificates of complainant’s son instead of returning the same to the complainant.

10.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”  

11.    Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act.  The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed.