Order by:

Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that on 25.08.2023, the complainant has sent a Rakhi through opposite party no. 1 at Mahavir Trading Company village Dhand, District Kaithal to his relatives. The opposite party no.1 has issued a receipt number 1461471566 to the complainant for future reference and also charged the specific amount as a courier charges about 200/- with the assurance that article will reach at distance place within two days or on before 30/8/2023. But the said Rakhi was not delivered to his relatives, the Opposite Party No.1 tell this fact to complainant telephonically. Then, the complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.1 and asked the reason for non delivery of the courier containing 'Rakhi', but the Opposite Party did not give satisfactory reply, rather shown the receipt issued by Opposite Party No.2 whereas the complainant has booked the courier through Opposite Party No.1 and told that they are unable to do anything and said that opposite party no.2 is responsible for this delay or loss of parcel. Alleged that till date, the said rakhi has not received by the relatives of complainant nor opposite parties have returned the same to complainant and now after the end of Rakhi festival (Raksha Bandan), no importance of Rakhi is kept for complainant. Alleged further that at the time of booking the courier, it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to duly confirm the address and district of the addressee to whom it was sent and if the address of the addressee was not complete on the courier, the Opposite Parties could refuse to receive the packet. Due to such act and conduct of Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; no deficiency in service has been attributed against the Opposite Parties. As a matter of fact the packet was sent to Opposite Party no.1 and same was sent to opposite party no.2, situated at Phiowa as there was no branch at village Dhand District Kaithal and due information was given to the concerned person to take delivery of said packet. But no person came to receive the said packet. Moreover as per settled terms and conditions, no claim can be made excess to Rs.100/-; the complainant has got no locus standi; no deficiency in service has been attributed to the answering Opposite Parties; the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous.

On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Complainant has also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Parties denying the objection raised by Opposite Parties in its written reply.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.

5.       On the other hand, Opposite Parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar s/o Hans Raj as Ex.OPs-1 alongwith copy of terms and conditions Ex.OPs-2.

6.         We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties, gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of Opposite Parties and also gone through the record.

7.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 25.08.2023, the complainant sent a Rakhi through Opposite Party No.1 at Mahavir Trading Company, village Dhand, District Kaithal to his relatives, who issued receipt no.1461471566 (Ex.C3). The Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that it will reach the destination within two days from 25.08.2023 or before 30.08.2023, but the relatives of the complainant informed him that they had not received the parcel before 30.08.2023 or after that also. Whereas on this point, Opposite Party No.1 averred that the parcel was sent to the office of Opposite Party No.2 for delivery of the same to the relatives of the complainant. Further contended by Opposite Party No.1 that the parcel was sent to the office of Opposite Party No.2 as there was no branch of Opposite Party No.1 at Village Dhand, District Kaithal and due intimation was given to the concerned person (that the parcel reached at Pehowa) to take the delivery of the said parcel, but nobody came to take the delivery of the said parcel from Pheowa Office and the delivery of the parcel had been taken on 11.09.2023 by the relatives of the complainant, but in the regard no documentary evidence has been placed on record. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the very purpose of sending the parcel was defeated as parcel was sent for the festival of ‘Rakhi’, which falls on 30.08.2023. On the other hand, the explanation given by Opposite Party No.1 for delay in delivery is not satisfactory. No evidence produced by the Opposite Party No.1 to establish his version that he ever made a call or given a message to the relatives of the complainant for the delivery of the parcel. Inordinate delay in delivery of the parcel was there and burden was upon the Opposite Party No.1 to explain that why they did not deliver the parcel on time. But the failure by the Opposite Party No.1 to explain the cause for inordinate delay in the delivery of parcel shows their deficiency in service. The parcel was not booked for overseas address, but it was booked to be delivered within the country, rather adjoining State. There is an inordinate delay of more than 15 days in delivering the parcel surely amounts to deficiency in service and makes the Opposite Party No.1 liable for the compensation.

          However complainant paid Rs.200/- charges for the delivery of parcel to Opposite Party No.1, whereas Opposite Parties said Rs.100/- was charged for the parcel. So, there is contradiction regarding the charges paid. Moreover both the parties have not produced any receipt for the payment paid/received. Hence, lump sum compensation will be awarded to the complainant.

8.       From the discussion above, we partly allow the instant complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and direct Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as lump sum compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to complainant. The pending application (s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Party No.1 is further burdened with additional cost of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission