DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:220 of 2011] Date of Institution : 20.05.2011 Date of Decision : 03.04.2012 --------------------------------------- Smt. Paramjit Kaur wife of Sh. Jaswnat Singh resident of House No.1523, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. [VERSUS] [1] Mr. Parshant, Shop No.9, Golu Market, Khanna. [2] The Branch Manager, Fedex Express, SCO No.9, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh. [3] The Manager (Customer Care), Fedex Express, C-152, Industrial Area, Phase II, Mayapuri, Delhi. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Ms. Sarpreet Kaur, Advocate for the complainant. OP No.1 already exparte. Sh. Sumit Ahuja, Advocate for OPs No.2 and 3. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT [1] Smt. Paramjit Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @18% per annum as compensation for harassment and mental agony; ii) To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. [2] In brief the case of the complainant is that in the month of January 2011, she applied for B.Sc (Nursing) 1 Year from Indra Gandhi National Open University, Ludhiana. She was provisionally selected for the said programme. According to the complainant, the last date for depositing the fee of Rs.13,200/- was 14.02.2011. The complainant filled the Acceptance Form and also prepared the Demand Draft of Rs.13,200/-. On 08.02.2011, the complainant approached OPs for sending his Acceptance Form along with the demand draft of Rs.13,200/- through courier to IGNOU, Ludhiana. She paid a sum of Rs.50/- as courier charges and said documents were sent to IGNOU, Ludhiana on 08.02.2011 itself. The case of the complainant is that the courier was delivered at the above said University on 17.02.2011 i.e. after expiry of the last date. According to the complainant, due to this lapse on the part of OPs in delivering the courier after the last date, her admission was cancelled. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. [3] As more than 30 days had expired since the notice was sent to OP No.1 through Registered A.D., it was presumed that OP No.1 had been duly served because of non appearance on behalf of OP No.1 despite due service, he was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.09.2011. [4] In the written statement filed by OPs No.2 and 3, the factum of booking of parcel has not been specifically denied. However, according to them, the complainant had not disclosed the contents and the particulars of the articles sent through that parcel. It has also been pleaded that as per the terms and conditions printed on the courier receipt, the liability of OPs No.2 and 3 is limited to Rs.100/- only. It has also been admitted that a fee of Rs.50/- was charged by the answering OPs while booking the parcel. It has also been pleaded that there were three holidays on 12.02.2011, 13.02.2011 and 16.02.2011 respectively and therefore, the courier was delivery at IGNOU, Ludhiana on 17.02.2011. In these circumstances, according to these OPs, there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. [5] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. [6] Annexure C-4 is the copy of Courier Receipt dated 08.02.2011, placed on record by the complainant herself. Admittedly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50/- as courier charges to the OPs and the said courier was to be delivery at IGNOU, Ludhiana. From bare perusal of this Courier Receipt, it is apparent that the complainant did not disclose the contents and the particulars of the documents to the OPs, at the time of booking the parcel. There are signatures of the complainant under the Verification Clause on this Courier Receipt. The complainant has not placed on record the terms and conditions as printed at the back of this Courier Receipt. In the absence of such disclosure about the contents and particulars of the documents by the complainant sought to be sent through courier, it cannot be said that the OPs were aware of the last date for submission of the documents/fee and the contents of the parcel. So, OPs cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service on this score. [7] At the same time, it is the admitted case of OPs No.2 and 3 that under the terms and conditions as printed on the Courier Receipt, which they themselves have failed to bring on record while submitting their reply, their liability is only limited to the extent of Rs.100/-. While disclosing this aspect of their terms and conditions, the OPs No.2 and 3 have failed to define the reasons that could attract their liability of payment of Rs.100/- to their customers. As the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in definite and certain terms, hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal. [8] In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. [9] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 3rd April 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II C.C.No.220 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 02.04.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 03.04.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
