DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.44/26.03.2008 Decided On : 27.02.2009. Gurtinder Preet Sharma W/o Sh. Sukhraj Sharma, resident of Sharma Street, Ward No.1, Near Nirankari Bhawan, Link Road, Mansa. .... Complainant. Versus 1.Mohit Cyber Cafe-cum-STD Courier, Cinema Road, Mansa through its Proprietor/Partner.. 2.Blaze Flash Courier Limited, Corporate Office, Blazeflash House, 2E/8 Jhandewala Extension, New Delhi-55 through the Manager. 3.Blaze Flash Courier Limited, Registered Office Sri Shakti Compound, Bajson Industrial Estate, Chakala Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai., through its Managing Director. 4.Mansa Enterprises, Jain School Street, Near Park, Mansa through its proprietor Gopal S/o Sh.Om Parkash c/o Om S.T.D. P.C.O. & FAX, Jain School Street, Mansa. .... Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. .... Present: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singla, counsel for complainant. Sh.Vikram Gupta, counsel for OP No.1. Sh. S.K.Singla, counsel for Ops.No.2,3 & 4. .... Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President: Smt. Gurtinder Preet Sharma wife of Sh. Sukhraj Sharma, resident of Mansa, has filed the instant complaint against the opposite Contd........2 : 2 : parties, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.90,000/-, and payment of costs incurred by her in filling of the instant complaint. As per averments made in the complaint, Akal Academy, has invited applications from persons having requisite qualifications for the post of teachers. The interview of the said post was scheduled to be held in the first week of January, 2008. The applications were to be sent to the President, The Kalgidhar Trust, Baru Sahib via Rajgarh, District Sirmour in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The complainant is MA B.Ed. and she possesses requisite qualification for appointment to the said post. On 10.1.2008, she sent her application form along with documents to the President of the above said trust through the OP No.1, who gave assurance that envelope delivered by her containing her application form and documents would be delivered at the destination, through courier. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.35/-, on 12.1.2008 and delivered the envelop for which receipt No.295568792, dated 12.1.2008, was issued by OP No.1 in the sum of Rs.35/-. After the complainant did not get any response of her application, she approached OP No.1, along with her husband who told them that envelope delivered by the complainant, had reached its destination, as such, enquiry be made from the concerned authority. On approaching Baru Sahib, the complainant came to know that her application form has not reached there. The complainant alongwith her husband again came to OP No.1 on 22.1.2008, but the OP No.1 delivered her back envelope stating that there is no service for Baru Sahib, as such, the complainant has lost the opportunity for appointment as a teacher in Akal Academy due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant asked OP No.1 as to why he earlier gave assurance and misinformed about the fate of envelope delivered to him, he used abusive language and insulted the complainant and his husband and Contd........3 : 3 : sent them outside his premises, as such, complainant has suffered mental and physical agony and had to incur expenses for filing of the instant complaint due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties who have not bothered to give reply to the notice sent by her. On being put to notice, Opposite party No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, because the answering opposite party works for OP No.2 and agency of courier concerned has been allotted to the said party, as such, he is not personally liable; that there was no guarantee that complainant was to secure service of a teacher, for appointment of which, she has sent the application form along with the documents; that complaint has been filed to harass the answering opposite party, as such, it is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, it is denied that Akal Academy had invited the applications from the eligible persons possessing the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of teacher through publication or that applications were to be sent by them to the President, The Kalgidhar Trust, Baru Sahib via Rajgarh, District Sirmour in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is further contended that answering opposite party is neither aware that applicant has applied for the post of teacher in Akal Academy nor it has given any assurance that envelop delivered by her would reach its destination through courier. It is further contended that answering opposite party had no notice if concerned courier has any arrangement for delivery of envelop at Baru Sahib. It is submitted that reply to notice served by the complainant, has been given and it has been submitted that there is no intentional and deliberate lapse on the part of the answering opposite party and remaining opposite parties are liable to pay her compensation, if any. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer, has been made, for dismissal, of the same with costs. Contd........4 : 4 : Opposite parties No.2 to 4 filed separate written version resisting the complaint taking preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and they have limited liability for non-delivery of envelop delivered by her at the destination in prescribed period; that envelop delivered by the complainant on 12.1.2008 was given back to her on 22.1.2008, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties because they were not aware that there was no office of the opposite parties at Baru Sahib at the time of receipt of the envelope from the complainant. On merits, the factum of deposit of envelope containing application form by the complainant has been admitted and it is submitted that it was sent by the opposite parties to its destination, but it was received back and the same was delivered back to the complainant on 22.1.2008. It is submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the answering opposite parties and it has been mentioned in the receipt given to the complainant that they are liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.100/- only. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer, has been made, for dismissal, of the same with costs. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit, Exhibit C-1 and affidavit of her husband Sh.Sukhraj Sharma, Ext.C-2 and copies of documents Ext.C-3 to C-13 including copy of advertisement published in newspaper on 7.1.2008, her application form, undelivered envelop, postal receipt, legal notice served upon the opposite parties and acknowledgments before her counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar, Ext.OP-1, Track Shipment Ext.OP-2 showing that he delivered the same on the date of receipt of the envelop to Bathinda. He has also tendered in evidence list of stations for which courier service is provided by the company concerned Ext.OP-3. The evidence of Ops. No.2,3 & 4 was closed by order. Contd........5 : 5 : At the outset, Sh.R.K.Singla, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the opposite parties, have admitted in their written version the factum of delivery of envelope containing the application form and documents by the complainant to them and payment of the amount in the sum of Rs.35/- by her is proved by the receipt placed on record by her. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the documents produced on record by the complainant, it is established that she had appliied for the post of teacher in Akal Academy, but due to non delivery of her envelope by the opposite parties at the destination, she had been deprived of an opportunity, to get employment, as such, she is entitled to claim compensation, for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for physical and mental harassment suffered by her alongwith costs of filing of the instant complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1, Sh. Vikram Gupta, Advocate, has argued that envelope delivered by the complainant was accepted by him as an agent of the remaining opposite parties and he had no knowledge by then that they have no arrangement for delivery of packages through courier at Baru Sahib, as such, no personal liability, can be fastened upon him, for non delivery of the envelope delivered by the complainant. At this stage Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the remaining opposite parties, has submitted that there is no intentional and deliberate omission on their part and the OP No.1 accepted the envelope, without verifying the arrangement for delivery thereof, at Baru Sahib, as such, there is no deficiency on their part for which compensation may be awarded to the complainant, as prayed for by her in the complaint. Admittedly, the complainant delivered the envelope on 12.1.2008, to the OP No.1 containing her application form and requisite documents for the post of a teacher sent in response to advertisement published by the Akal Academy and she paid a sum of Rs.35/-, on Contd........6 : 6 : account of charges for the delivery of the envelope at the destination. It is not disputed that the OP No.1 has accepted the envelope from the complainant, as agent of the remaining opposite parties. As such, the complainant is 'consumer' under all the opposite parties, within the ambit of its definition given in the Act. As per the admitted facts and oral and documentary evidence adduced on record by the complainant, envelope delivered by her was returned by the OP No.1, on 22.1.2008 undelivered, because the opposite parties, had no arrangement, for delivery thereof, at the destination, because of which she could not appear in the interview for the post of teacher, on the stipulated date, which has expired before she received her envelope back undelivered on 22.1.2008 from the OP No.1. As such, evidently, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was expected that opposite party No.1 was required to verify the arrangement at the destination from the remaining opposite parties at the time of acceptance of the envelope from the complainant, but his omission to do so on its part, does not absolve him or the remaining opposite parties and complainant cannot be non suited due to any lapse on their part. As such, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable, to compensate the complainant for deficiency in service, because of which she had lost the chance for appearance for interview for the post of teacher and to secure the job. Learned counsel for the opposite parties voluntarily submitted, that there was no guarantee, that complainant was certain to be selected for the post, she had applied for, as such, in the absence of any positive evidence, her complaint is liable to be dismissed. We do not find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, because deficiency in service on their part, is clearly established and the Forum, has to compensate the person aggrieved of the same, with suitable amount, irrespective of the fact Contd........7 : 7 : whether the complainant could have or not been selected for the post for which she had sent her application form along with requisite documents through the courier company of the opposite parties. At this stage, Learned counsel for the opposite parties has further argued that as provided on the receipt issued by them, their liability for loss of parcel is restricted to the extent of Rs.100/- only. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is no evidence that complainant was made conversant with the instructions printed on the receipt issued by the opposite parties. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties do not sound well with us because, as per a note written in small letters at the foot note of the receipt Ext.C-6 issued by the opposite parties, their liability for loss or damage to the consignment in transit or delay in delivery of the same is restricted to Rs.100/- for domestic consignment, but there is no evidence that contents thereof were communicated to the complainant by the official of the opposite parties who accepted the envelope from him. The courier company is expected to explain the terms of the policy to the insured before he appends his signatures. Since the opposite parties have not brought any evidence to establish that contents of the receipt were read over and explained to the complainant, therefore, inference cannot be drawn that he was aware of the above said note mentioned on the receipt Ext.C-6. The legislature has enacted the Act for the welfare of Society, as such, complainant cannot be non suited by imputing knowledge to him about the contents of the above said note mentioned at the foot note of the receipt and on technicalities. The argument of the opposite parties thus stands repelled. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant on account of compensation along with simple interest at the rate of 9 percent, from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual Contd........8 : 8 : payment. The opposite parties are also burdened, in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, as costs. The above said amount be paid by the opposite parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and their liability to pay the above said amount would be joint and several. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 27.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
