Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/832/2019

Manish Kumar Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Chaudhary Adv.

14 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	832/2019
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	14.02.2020

 

                                 

                                        

Manish Kumar Arya s/o Sh.Ram Phar Arya r/o H.No.261, Small Flats, Mauli Jagran, Part-2, Chandigarh -160102.

       ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. DTDC Corporate Office, House No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047 (Karnataka) through its Director.
2. DTDC Regional Office, SCO No.267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh -160036 through its Regional Manager.
3. Gurdeep Singh, Proprietor of Document Center, Shop No.174/6, Village Mauli Jagran, UT, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by Complainant in person.

                OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.        Brief facts of the case are as alleged by the complainant are that he was doing six months Nutrition Course which was conducted by RCM Bhilwara (Rajasthan) through online process by Xpertifi ITM Skill Academy and for that purpose he had submitted registration fee of Rs.1500/- and the exams were to be conducted in April, 2019. It was alleged to be one time opportunity to complete the Course as per the rules of the Academy and there was no second chance to complete the said course. The study material i.e. books and one mechanical device was available only at Delhi and Bombay and as such he approached his friend namely Arpit Bhatia at Delhi to send the material i.e. books and one mechanical device through courier.  After arranging the said material, the same was sent by his friend through OPs on 09.03.2019 from Delhi vide tacking No.Z85788980 as well as from Bombay vide tracking No.M81467612. After passing of one week of shipping, the said material did not receive by him from the courier agency and, therefore, he checked the online status and become surprised to know that the same was shown to be “successfully delivered” on 11.03.2019 as well as on 12.03.2019.  He approached OP No.2 who further gave a telephonic call to OP No.3 to know the delivery which in turn assured to deliver the courier by the evening to the complainant. When the same was not delivered after waiting for two days then he personally approached OP No.3 who stated that as the complainant had complained against it to OP No.2, therefore, he will not handover the courier as the shipment summary showing the online status as “successfully delivered”.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.        Despite due service through registered post, OP No.1 has failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.11.2019.
3.        Notices sent for the service of OPs No.2 and 3 were received back with the report “refusal”. Since refusal was a good service and none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.2 and 3 on the date fixed, therefore they were ordered proceeded against exparte. 
4.        We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documents on record.
5.        In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint along with the supporting documents.   He has specifically deposed in his affidavit that the material sent by his friend namely Arpit Bhatia through courier has not been delivered to him by the courier agency (OPs) despite his repeated requests.  He has further deposed in his affidavit that he personally met OP No.3 who refused to return the articles on the ground that the complainant had made a complaint against him to OP No.2.
6.        Furthermore, the absence of OPs draws an adverse inference against them because despite having knowledge of the dispute in question, they chose not to appear and they did not come forward to defend the case for the simple reason that either they admit the claim or left with nothing to contradict the claim raised by the complainant. Hence, the allegations of the complainant supported by duly sworn affidavit go un-rebutted and unchallenged.
7.        In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed by directing the OPs to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.6,500/- to the complainant on account of loss, mental agony, physical harassment and the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of  this order till its realization.
8.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14/02/2020                                                         sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER