BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 172 of 2012
Date of Institution : 28.8.2012
Date of Decision : 1.3.2016
M/s Computer and Mobile House 257-Commercial Center, Old Civil Hospital Market, New M.c.Market, Sirsa, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its sole proprietor Kailash Kumar s/o Sh.Raj Kumar.
……Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Jyoti Enterprises, Blazeflash Couriers Ltd., Sirsa through its proprietor C/o DTDC Couriers Ltd., Gali Munjal Photostate wali, Dwarkapuri, Sirsa, tehsil and distt. Sirsa.
- Blazeflash Couriers Ltd., Blazeflash, House IIIrd Floor, 2E/8, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-110055 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SH.RAJIV MEHTA…… …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.D.L.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, complainant on 27.8.2011, sent a mobile parcel containing mobile sets amounting to Rs.68518/- having the weight of 12.846 Kgs. through opposite parties vide receipt no.298922000 dt. 27.8.2011 to Intex Technologies India Ltd. c/o Rahul Trading Company, 407/1, Sanjay colony vill road, Gurgaon and also sent the bill invoice No.60 dt. 25.8.2011 of Rs.68518/- with the parcel and paid a sum of Rs.455/- being the charges of courier service to Op no.1. After a week, when the complainant contacted to said Intex Technologies Ltd. about the parcel, then it came to his notice that they refused to receive the parcel and returned back to the complainant through Op as the parcel was of less weight than the weight sent by the complainant. Upon this, when the complainant approached to Op no.1, it was told that as some of the mobiles were missing from the parcel in the way, therefore, the same could not be delivered at the destination. On checking the parcel, it was found by the complainant that the parcel was having less weight of 11.08 kgs than the weight of 12.846 kgs. sent by the complainant through the opposite party and 6 pieces of mobiles intext-In2080 and one piece of Intex mobile in 8810, amounting to total cost of Rs.18,330/- were missing. The complainant requested the Op to make the said payment, but they refused. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, OP no.1 contested the case by filing its written reply. It is pleaded that DTDC couriers Ltd. is a separate courier firm and it has no connection with M/s Jyoti Enterprises in any manner. DTDC Couriers is working under the name and style of Jayamby Enterprises, Dwarka Puri, Sirsa, which is managed through its sole proprietor Sanjay Kumar, r/o Noharia Bazar, Sirsa. Hence, the DTDC has been impleaded in this complaint being proprietor of op no.1, which is wrong and incorrect, against law and facts. Opposite party no. 2 was duly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.11.2014 and opposite party no.1 was duly proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 27.1.2016.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2- receipt; Ex.C3-bill dt. 25.8.2011, Ex.C4-Delivery sheet, ExC5-memo dt.1.11.2011.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Facts of the case are that complainant Kailash Kumar booked a mobile parcel containing mobile sets amounting to Rs.68518/- having the weight of 12.846 Kgs. from opposite party no. 1 vide receipt no.298922000 dt. 27.8.2011(Ex. C2) to Intex Technologies India Ltd. Gurgaon and also sent (Ex.C3) bill invoice no. 60 dated 25.8.2011 of sum of Rs. 68518/- with the parcel and paid a sum of Rs. 455/- being charge of courier service to the opposite party no. 1.
6. After a week the complainant inquired telephonically about the parcel from Intex Technologies India Ltd. but it was told that the parcel was of less weight than sent by the complainant and as such they refused to accept/receive the parcel and returned back to the complainant through opposite party. The complainant approached opposite party no. 1 on dated 5.9.2011 and inquired about the parcel. After checking the parcel the complainant found that the parcel was having less weight of 11.08 kg. the weight of 12.846 kg. sent by the complainant through the opposite party. There was missing of 6 pieces of mobile Intex-in 2080 and one piece of Intex Mobile-in8810 amounting to total cost Rs. 18330/-.
7. Opposite party no. 1 filed its reply and contested the case that there has been shown through its proprietor C/o DTDC Couriers Limited. In fact the DTDC is a separate courier firm and it has no connection with M/s. Jyoti Enterprises in any manner DTDC Couriers is working under the name and style of Jayamby Enterprise through its sole proprietor Sanjay Kumar. They denied that they received any mobile parcel from the complainant at any time. It is admitted that the complainant mobile parcel was given to Blazeflash Couriers.
8. Opposite party no. 2 has failed to appear before this forum and proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.11.2014 and opposite party no. 1 also proceeded exparte vide order dated 27.1.2016. As such no version on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has been filed in this case. In these circumstances, it can be said that the Ops have nothing to deny the claim of the complainant. We have no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, complainant has successfully proved his case through various documents on file.
9. In our view, Ops have adopted unfair trade practice that also come in the category of mal-practice.
10. The behavior of the opposite parties not transparent since the day. They have intentionally choosed to proceed exparte. The document of the complainant is satisfied for decision of the case. The opposite parties have not tendered any evidence to prove their case.
11. As discussed above, we accept the complaint with cost of Rs.1000/- and direct the Ops to pay Rs. 18330/- within two months from today for the loss suffered by complainant, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for compliance of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 1.3.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
