13.01.2015    -  Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/courier and he was only working as a franchise of DTDC. Delivering Value, which was not made party by the complainant. He further submitted that the article sent was not received by the addressee and therefore it was returned to the complainant but he refused to receive the packet.

2.       The learned District Forum interalia held that if the office of Jagdalpur was closed, the appellant should not have booked the consignment after charging the Rs. 280/- on 4.1.2013. Accordingly it held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/courier and directed the appellant/courier to pay Rs. 284/- being value of the goods plus Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost and Rs. 500/- for mental agony, totaling Rs. 2064/- within 30 days of the order, failing which the appellant/courier was to pay 9% interest also on the said amount.

3.       In our opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned judgement accordingly this appeal is dismissed. However, the time to comply with the impugned order is extended by sixty days from to-day  i.e. if Rs. 2064/- is not paid to the Complainant within sixty days of this order, the appellant will also be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% P.A. on the said amount from to-day, till payment / realization.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                Ranchi,

      Dated:- 13-01-2015