Complainant Talwinder Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to take necessary action into the matter and to send the PCC in question on the given address. He has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss and also for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant has also claimed Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that son of the complainant namely Jagjit Singh is presently residing abroad i.e. Portugal since 11.11.2006 and he was in dire need of Police Clearance Certificate which was to be issued by SSP Gurdaspur and duly countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur, Under Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, department of NRI Affairs Chandigarh and Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and also by Embassy Authorities for the purpose of obtaining P.R. It was pleaded that complainant being father applied for the Police Clearance Certificate in the office of SSP Gurdaspur and the same was issued by the competent authority after obtaining reports from various authorities bearing No.2015/1636/PCC/PCC/CPRC dated 12.11.2015 and the same was got countersigned by the complainant from Ld. Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur and then from Under Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of NRI Affairs at Chandigarh and also countersigned the same from Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi. It was pleaded that complainant had to move from pillar to post in obtaining the PCC from the office of SSP Gurdaspur to Chandigarh and then New Delhi and in this process complainant had suffered loss of time in addition of expenditure of money. It was further pleaded that he was forced to seek help from Advocate and agents as he was not aware about the process of obtaining PCC and getting the same countersigned from the various authorities as mentioned above and in this process he had spend more than Rs.50,000/- in addition to loss of work. It was pleaded that on 4.12.2015 complainant handed over the original PCC to the opposite party for onward submission to Portugal at the address, “Dildar Singh Rua Diago, Bernardes-352 dto 2700-237Amadora Lisbon Portugal” and opposite party charged Rs.1400/- from the complainant for this purpose. It was also pleaded that complainant was surprised when document in question had not reached at its destination due to which complainant and his son suffered mentally, physically as well as financially as the document in question was very necessary because the same was to be produced by the son of the complainant before the Embassy Authorities of Portugal. It was next pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party with the request that to take action into the matter and to intimate him about the status of the document and also to make efforts so that same may reach to the address but initially opposite party put of the matter pending with one or the other excuse and finally stated that they will not be responsible for any lapse and asked the complainant to do whatever he wants. It was pleaded that it is a clear cut deficiency and gross negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party who neither sent the document in question at its destination nor taken any action for knowing about the status of the said document due to which complainant had suffered mental agony, torture and harassment, hence this complaint.
3. Opposite party had been served through dasti summon but failed to appear in the Forum and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.2.2016.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as duly produced by the complainant side (with the opposite party preferring to stay ‘ex-parte’ in spite of the due service of ‘Dasti’ summons) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially drawn for the OP courier’s intentional ‘stay-away’ absence; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant. We find that the OP Courier had duly accepted (vide Courier Receipt Ex.C4 of 04.12.2015 for Rs.1,400/-) from the ‘titled’ complainant one Piece (Packet-Cover) containing ‘Document(s)’ for delivery to his addressee ‘son’ Dildar Singh at Lisbon (Purtugal) that however was not delivered as deposed out in the Ex.C1 affidavit (accompanying the complaint). Further, the dispatched document Ex.C2 Police Clearance Certificate (with requisite endorsements from District SSP, District DC, Secretary NRI Affairs & Ministry of External Affairs) that has indeed been ‘apparently’ a very ‘precious’ document to the complainant who had procured it with much ‘effort & expense’ and also to his son who had to file it (the document) with the Purtugal authorities to seek the ‘award’ of PR (permanent–residence) ‘status’ in that country. The ‘non-delivery’ of the couriered packet-cover to the ‘addressee’ (till the filing of the present complaint) coupled with the ‘rude & un-satisfactory’ response of the OP courier has indeed bruised the ‘consumer-rights’ of the complainant under the applicable statute. However, the depth/intensity/gravity of the complainant’s bruise/grievance cannot be precisely determined in the absence of the information whether the ‘couriered-packet’ was ‘de-facto’ delivered (or not) during the conduct of the present proceedings and whether the complainant’s Son could ‘de-facto’ present (or not) the requisite ‘document’ to the alien ‘competent-authority’ for the purpose. Somehow (though strange), the complainant preferred not to submit/produce the above ‘simple’ information/clarification despite having sought of and having availed of ‘5’ nos. of adjournments for the purpose.
6. We find that the intentional stay-away ‘absence’ of the OP courier service providers (in spite of the due service of Dasti-Summons) had culminated into an ‘ex-parte’ proceeding that gives rise to the one judicial (though discretionary) presumption (as per the settled law vide a plethora of superior court judgments) that such a defendant has no legs to stand and come to the witness-box to depose his version since he does not have any defense (in his favor) to prosecute. Moreover, the complainant’s case as put forth and as prosecuted by his learned counsel as duly supported by the produced documentary evidence has indeed proved the allegations of ‘deficiency in service’ and adoption of ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the opposite party (courier service providers) and that lines it up for an adverse statutory ‘award’ under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986. However, in the light of the totality of the all above ‘narratives’ we are inclined to award one ‘moderated’ compensation (only) in place of the ‘punitive’ one.
7. Lastly, we are of the considered opinion that the OP couriers have indeed bruised the complainant’s statutory consumer rights and as such to fairly meet the ends of justice we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP couriers to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of complaint till actual payment.
8. 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)
MAY 11, 2016 Member.
*YP*
