Delhi

East Delhi

CC/192/2014

RAJESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                 CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        192/2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                20/02/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               06/10/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        07/10/2017  

In matter of

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, adult     

Law Linker’s & Co.

D- 29, Jangpura Extn., New Delhi 110014.………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                     Vs

1-DTDC through The Director

B-101, Phase I, Industrial Area

Naraina, New Delhi 110028  

2- Mr Alok – Branch Manager

M/s DTDC – Laxmi Nagar Branch 

Nr Laxmi Nagar Metro Stn.  

Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092……….………………………………………………….Opponents

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

This complaint had been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 r/w sub section 2(1) (g), (o) &(r 1 ii) for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against opponent/courier services where insured goods were not delivered at the booking place, so led harassment and financial loss of complainant.  

Complainant, Rajesh Kumar, placed two orders on website “satyapaul.com” vide order no. 85830 and 85840 and got confirmation from OP1 on 16/08/2013 (Ex CW1/1). Complainant got consignments number also on 23/08/2013 vide no. AWB Z94827894 and AWB Z94828148 and were to be delivered at Gurdas Gupta, HN 22A, Ganesh Nagar Extn., Shakarpur, Delhi 92. As the consignments were not delivered, so complainant checked on OP website where it was shown as delivered. He immediately contacted OP who informed to contact Branch Manager of OP2, so he met Mr Saurabh, who told that he would check the status of consignments and would call him. When complainant did not get any massage, so he gave written complaint to OP2 and sent emails also (Ex CW1/2, 3, 4 & 5). Despite of repeated visit, when no items/goods were delivered, complainant also sent a legal notice on 24/10/2013 through speed post, but the same was returned with remark as “Incomplete address’ (Ex CW1/7 & 8). Thereafter, complainant complained to Shakarpur police station, Delhi (Ex. CW1/9) and the same was under investigation.      

Being harassed and suffered loss due to non delivery of consignments as deliberately and intentionally act of OP, filed this complaint claiming delivery of consignments with compensation of Rs One Lakh.

On receiving notices, OP1 jointly submitted written statement for OP2 also. OPs denied all the allegations put in the complaint as wrong and incorrect. It was stated that complainant did not book any consignment, so there was no contract between them. The consignments were sent through online site and were delivered accordingly in time. There was no consideration paid by the complainant and consignments were as “Exclusive Gift Set” under code D169 (Ex. PW1/1 and 2) which would be delivered to complainant’s address in 3-7 working days. This gift set was exclusively available for Airtel customers for INR 299/-having its value as INR 5000/-in order  confirmation dated 16/08/2013 time at 1.35 pm through mail sent by OP “

OP stated that the present complaint does not fall under the definition of Consumer and to be dismissed. It was also stated that complainant had not mentioned the detail of products and no consideration was ever paid to delivering person or had paid any amount through online.  As this order was a Gift scheme for Airtel customers only in Rs 299/- against Rs 5,000/-, but in this case no consideration was ever paid.

No concrete evidence was filed by the complainant in this regard and also there was no evidence filed by the complainant on record for loss and harassment for which compensation of Rs one Lakh was asked. Thus, OPs had no deficiency in their services or any unfair trade practice so, present complaint be dismissed. 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to the written statement and evidences filed on affidavit where complainant affirmed on oath that OP had not delivered any consignments and his all facts in complaint were correct.        

OP also submitted their evidences on affidavit through their A.R. Nidhi Mehta where she stated on oath that the complainant had neither disclosed the contents of the consignment nor paid any consideration and also there was no evidence of amount ever was paid to OP1 or their Branch office /OP2.

None of the parties or their counsel put appearance on the date of Arguments despite of notices been given. So, file was perused and order was reserved. Later, OP counsel submitted two citations as –

• Blue Dart Courier Services & others vs M/s Modern Wool Ltd., FA 1/1992, decided on 23/07/193, III (1993) CPJ 308 (NC).
• AIRPACK Courier India Pvt Ltd. vsS Suresh, FA 65/1992 decided on 11/03/1993, I (1994) CPJ 52 (NC).

After examining all the facts and evidences, it was evident that OP had confirmed two consignments which were delivered as free Gifts. There was no evidence on record by which it can be proved that he is a bonafide consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) (i). By going through Free Gift sets from Airtel, it is obvious that offer was given by Airtel for Rs 299/- instead of INR 5000/-, but complainant had not paid any such consideration.    

Complainant has to establish himself as a genuine consumer, but here he could not prove so. We have also scrutinized the above citations submitted by OP, but are not applicable here in this case because complainant in above judgments had paid considerations and consignment did not reach the destination, but here complainant had neither paid any consideration nor booked the consignment from OP/DTDC and here the consignments were a Free Gift sent by Airtel through OP and as per evidences on record, the same were delivered to the complainant. Thus, complainant could not prove any deficiency in services of DTDC/OP.       

So, we come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this complaint as complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, this complaint deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Consumer Protection Rule 18 and file be consigned to the Record Room under section 20(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                            Sukhdev Singh President