The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that complainant took the help of OP-Courier service being courier docket No.K-87027175 on 3rd June, 2916 for reaching some valuable papers such as original bills, credit notes etc. to one Arindam Chakraborty in Kolkata, but the said courier did not reach its destination as enquired by complainant from said Arindam Chakraborty. OPs showed the delivery sheet as it has reached on 06.06.2016 but the signature of the acceptance is not true. It is contended that it was the legal obligation of the courier to reach the packet to its destination for which complainant paid the charges to the OPs and for not reaching the said documents and papers complainant had to face severe loss and thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs occurred. Complainant ultimately in this case has prayed for a relief in the form of award at a tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
The OPs appeared in this case and filed written version stating therein inter-alia that that it is the duty of the OP Courier service to handover the received articles at the right address given by the party and it is denied that consignment booked was not delivered to consignee Mr. Arindam Chakraborty on 06.06.2016.
On the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed for determination of the real question of controversy here in this case in between the parties.
1) Is the case maintainable in its present form and nature?
2) Is the case barred by limitation?
3) Has there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
4) Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Issue Nos.1 & 2
Here in this case at the time of advancing argument these two issues were not pressed by either side. However, on proper scrutiny of the case record it appears to us that the instant case is maintainable as per Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and at the same time it is found that the case was filed within statutory period meant for limitation as per Act. Accordingly, both these issues are disposed of.
Issue No.3
This issue is an important one to be determined relating to the matter of relief as prayed for by the complainant.
In this case complainant has filed an affidavit-in-chief of himself wherein the contention of the petition of complaint has been further supported and some documents are also filed namely Annexure-A & B. Annexure-A is a receipt of OP Courier service and Annexure-B is a delivery sheet of the said consignment. The OP side after submission of written version furnished examination-in-chief on affidavit. Subsequently, Written Notes on Argument have been filed by both the sides at the stage of argument and at that time complainant filed some documents mainly on the point of verification of signature of Mr. Arindam Chakraborty, consignee of the articles to show that the consignment in question was not delivered to him and to that effect IRCTC e-ticket and signature verification matter before HDFC Bank where account of said Arindam Chakraborty has been there and HDFC Bank A/C print out paper all containing signatures of Arindam Chakraborty are produced before this Forum. OP side during argument referred one judgement as passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in between Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Another Vs Shakti Co-operative House Building Society as reported in II 2009 CPJ 40 (SC) wherein it has emphasized that power of Consumer Fora is queasy judicial in nature. Averments made in complaint by consumer cannot be taken as gospel truth-cogent material has to be produced before the Commission in support of unfair trade practice, inferential finding not sufficient to attract Section 2(1)(r) of the Act. Having regard to the submissions of both sides made during argument we, in order to determine the above issue, have gone through the documents as on record as well as the evidences as produced in writing and particularly the written notes on argument of the parties taking into consideration the original application and the written version.
From the Exhibit-B it is apparently clear that the consignment while reached on 06.06.2016 then there has been the signature of Arindam Chakraborty is there. Now in the complaint at para no.2 it is alleged that the signature of the acceptance is not the true signature of the consignee. In natural thinking while complainant alleges so, it was the duty incumbent upon the complainant to substantiate this piece of allegation by bringing that person Arindam Chakraborty to whom the articles were sent from his part through the OP Courier service. The complainant could have impleaded said person in this case even in the status of Proforma OP for proving the matter of signature of said Arindam Chakraborty. The complainant after producing his affidavit-in-chief could have furnished the affidavit–in– chief of said Arindam Chakraborty as PW 2 in this case. No endeavour has been made from the part of the complainant even for proving the signature of Arindam Chakraborty by Hand Writing Expert. The person Arindam Chakraborty is the best witness to prove his signature but that has been withdrawn by the complainant side. The documents which are produced excluding Annexure-A & B containing signatures of Arindam Chakraborty from the side of the complainant are practically of no use and those are not and cannot be the cogent evidence for comparing and cannot be accepted as sacrosanct relating the veracity of signature of Arindam Chakraborty in question. Here on this backdrop the referred case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is required to be borne in mind by us. Complainant is required to prove his own case beyond reasonable doubt where in this case entire dispute has been cropped up from the signature of the consignee, Arindam Chakraborty put after delivery of articles. Thus, complainant fails to establish any sort of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
Issue No.4
Foregoing negative findings over the vital issue of deficiency in service as run against the complainant, so, we are to conclude that complainant’s case fails in its entirety and accordingly, liable to be dismissed.
All the issues are thus disposed of and the instant complaint fails.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the instant being Consumer Case No.4/S/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. No order as to cost.
A copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
