Complainant Paras Ram through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.60,000/- with 18% interest from the date of institution of application and also pay Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental pain. He has also claimed Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a social worker and is director of NGO named Paras Welfare Foundation, Regd. Office at Main Bazar, Bamial, District Pathankot. He has laid down his life for the welfare of society. It was pleaded that complainant prepared a project for the welfare of poor women of society of worth Rs.6164000/- and applied for grant before Union Ministry of Women and Child by which poor women will be donated stitching machines and given training for manufacturing hand bags etc. It was pleaded that for the above said purpose complainant engaged the services of NGO Grant Helpline i.e. Crime report of India, Magazine situated at Patiala through which project was to be finalized, pursued and submitted online to the Union Ministry of Women and Child and NGO Grants Helpline charged 1% of total project amount as their fee which was Rs.60,000/- in advance. It was further pleaded that on 24.3.2015 complainant went to the office of opposite party No.1 for sending the parcel of documents which contains hard copy of projects and photocopy of bond through courier to crime report/NGO Grants Helpline for the above mentioned purpose and brought into the notice of opposite party No.1 that the courier must reach the office of crime report Patiala before 31.3.2015 otherwise he will suffer loss of Rs.60,000/-. It was pleaded that opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the destination of courier is within state of Punjab and it will be delivered on 26.3.2015 and the complainant paid Rs.50/-as courier fee but this figure was not mentioned in the receipt and as such complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. It was also pleaded that on 28.3.2015 complainant went to opposite party No.1 and enquired about his courier delivery and opposite party No.1 told him that his courier is in transit and will reach its destination before 31.3.2015. On 31.3.2015 complainant again enquired about his courier but opposite party No.1 told that his courier is in transit. It was pleaded that complainant called the customer care no. of opposite party No.2 and inquired about his courier but they refused to listen and told that he can check the status of his courier online. Complainant checked the status of his courier from 11.4.2015 to 22.7.2015 online but it showed in transit. It was next pleaded that complainant again requested the opposite party No.1 that his courier had not reached its destination and they should return his courier and also pay Rs.60,000/- which he had suffered but they refused to do so, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.10.2015.
Counsel for the complainant tendered into exparte evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence and other documents as available on the records of the proceedings along with an exhaustive but judicious perusal of the allegations as made out in the body of the complaint in the back drop of the presenting gravity (in the complainants’ prosecution) and the OP’s preference to be proceeded against ex-parte. No doubt, the OP service provider’s preferred absence does give rise to the discretionary presumption that he (the defendant respondent) has ‘no defense’ to prosecute but at the same time the plaintiff complainant is also desired to prove the alleged ‘deficiency in service’ (beyond a reasonable doubt) on the part of the opposite party in order to get him an adverse award. It is not understood as to how and why an exposed literate person running an NGO in the capacity of its Director will forego the Money Receipt depriving himself of the status of ‘consumer’ under the C P Act. Further, there have been no details like value/insurance cover/nature of the booked parcel/packet on the courier receipt (Ex.C3) and in absence of this vital information its monetary value cannot be safely assessed. Somehow, in the present complaint proceedings the complainant has proved the handing over of the ‘couriered’ parcel to the OP courier vide Receipt Ex.C3 dated 24.03.2015 with reference # as: Z50194165 for delivery to the addressee/ consignee at Patiala but he has failed to produce the direct evidence of its ‘non-delivery’ to the addressee at the recorded address (at Patiala). Instead, the hard copies of the on-line tracking results have been produced on record as: Ex.C4 to Ex.C8; out of these the first four nos. indicate the ‘status’ of the booked consignment as: ‘in transit’ but as on: Wednesday, March’ 25’ 2015 at 09:54 pm without indicating the date and time of noting/ checking these online confirmations whereas the copy Ex.C8 does not relate to (Z50194165) the consignment in question. Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant has not been able to successfully prove the allegations as contented in the present complaint.
6. In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint devoid of ‘actionable’ merit under the C P Act and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however liberty duly granted to the complainant to avail of any other ‘relief’ available in law and as prescribed in law.
7. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
DEC. 18, 2015 Member.
*YP*
