Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/664

Subash Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Chhibba

21 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                 C.C. No.664 of 19.09.2014

                                                          Date of decision:27.04.2015 

Subhash Gupta aged 62 years s/o late Sh.Mitter Sain Gupta, resident of 65-I, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

                                                          ….Complainant

                                       Versus       

 

1.DTC Courier & Cargo Limited, through Sh.Rakesh Gupta, Shop No.9, Aggar Nagar, Block-A, Ludhiana.

2.DTC Courier & Cargo Limited, through its authorized person, Opp. Atam Park Police Station, Ludhiana.

                                                                             …Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms. Babita, Member.

                  

Present:       Sh.Narinder Chhibba, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sarvjit Singh, Adv. for Ops.

 

                                                ORDER

 

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Subhash Gupta(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against DTC Courier & Cargo Limited and others (hereinafter in short to be described ‘Ops’), directing them to Rs.2 lakh as compensation on account of deficiency in service provided by the Ops alongwith Rs.22,000/- a cost of litigation expenses.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant with a purpose to avail the services of Ops, handed over a packet containing documents which were to be submitted by the counsel for the complainant in the Court at Rajasthan vide receipt No.*Z31453699* dated 23.8.2014 and the aforesaid packet was sent to Sh.Ajit Singh, Advocate, Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar(Rajasthan). The complainant paid the charges to the OP1 and OP2. The Ops failed to deliver the packet containing the documents in time and the same was delivered to Sh.Ajit Singh, Advocate after 5 days. The packet containing the documents to be submitted in the Court and due to non-delivery of the documents in time, the court of Judicial Magistrate, imposed a fine of Rs.5000/-, u/s 446 Cr.P.C. Such act and conduct of Ops for non-delivery of the packet in time is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Sarvjit Singh, Advocate. However, when the case was fixed for filing written statement by Ops, an application for amendment of the complaint was filed by the complainant which was allowed vide order dated 11.12.2014 and Ops did not file the written statement and thereafter, inadvertently, the case was fixed for evidence of complainant on 5.2.2015.

4.               In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rajeev, its Administrative Officer, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OPs and rebutted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has proved on record document Ex.R1/A.

6.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Ops has filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed. The complainants have not approached this District Forum with clean hands and have concealed and suppressed the material facts and the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the answering Ops. Neither the risk charge policy was adopted by the complainants nor the goods were insured inspite of guidance by the answering Ops. The instant complaint of the complainants is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. The complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint as the same is neither verified correctly nor supported with proper affidavit. The complaint of the complainant has technical as well as legal default. The complainants are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint against the answering Ops. The terms and conditions were to be followed by the complainants. The booked parcels were delivered in intact condition to the addressee/consignee as provided at the time of booking. Reply on facts, it is submitted that there is no special kind of contract with the complainants for assurance to deliver within 5 days. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainants levelled against the answering OPs being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7.                We have heard the rival contention of learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record on file very carefully.

8.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant had handed over a packet containing documents which were to be submitted by the counsel for the complainant in the Court at Rajasthan vide receipt No.*Z31453699* dated 23.8.2014 and the aforesaid packet was sent to Sh.Ajit Singh, Advocate, Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar(Rajasthan). Further, it is a proved fact on record that the Ops failed to deliver the packet containing the documents in time and the same was delivered to Sh.Ajit Singh, Advocate after 5 days. As per the allegations of the complainant that the packet containing the documents was to be submitted in the Court and due to non-delivery of the documents in time, the court of Judicial Magistrate, had imposed fine of Rs.5000/- u/s 446 Cr.P.C., which fact is evident from copy of receipt Ex.C2 issued by the concerned Court.

9.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Ops has failed to give any justification for late delivery of the packet which was handed over by the Ops in order to deliver to the consignee which has definitely caused damages to the complainant and the complainant must have suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to non-production of the documents which he was required to submit before the Judicial Court at Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in some criminal case.

10.              So, it is proved on record that the complainant had hired the service of Ops on payment of consideration, as such, the Ops are liable to deliver the goods to the consignee which they have not done which clearly amount to deficiency in service on their part.

11.              In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we hereby direct OPs to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                 (Babita)             (Sat Paul Garg)         (R.L.Ahuja)

              Member                 Member                President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:27.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma