BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Nidhi Garg, d/o Sh. Rajesh Garg, r/o # 400, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  Sanjeev Garg, Booth No. 21, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

2.  Skylark Express, (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd, through Shr. Sanjeev Garg, Booth No. 21, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 14.7.2009, the complainant`s father Sh. Rajesh Garg, had handed over an envelop to OP-1 for its delivery addressed to The Registrar, High Court of Uttrakhand Nainital.  The said envelop was containing an application form of the complainant for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the State of Uttrakhand. The last date of receipt of the application form was 17.7.2009. At the time of handing over the said envelop, the OP No.1 after making an enquiry on phone from OP No.2 made sure that the envelop would be delivered to the addressee by 16.07.2009. On 16.07.2009, it was confirmed to the complainant by OP No. 1 that ‘envelop has been delivered to the addressee’. On 16.08.2009 when the complainant did not find her name in the roll number list of the eligible candidates displayed on the internet by the Registrar General, High Court of Uttrakhand, Nainital, she sent an email to the Registrar General, High Court of Uttrakhand, Nainital on 17.08.2009 to know the fate of her application. On 18.08.2009 she talked to the Registrar General on phone and was stunned to know that her application form had not reached the addressee even till 17.08.2009. After that, the complainant made several attempts to contact OP No.1 regarding the above facts but all in vain. Hence, on 13.10.2009 a legal notice was served to the OPs regarding the same but the said notice has not been replied till date. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that the envelop in question which was sent by them through courier was duly delivered to the addressee on 17.07.2009. The complainant had not disclosed the contents of the packet/courier to the OPs at the time of booking and no promise/assurance was given by the OPs for the delivery of the packet on or before 17.07.2009. The complainant had not produced any written reply of the High Court of Uttrakhand, whether they had received the said envelop of the complainant or not. As per the terms at No. 6 of the receipt, the liability if any on the part of OPs was limited to Rs.100/- only and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant and the complainant after agreeing the same had booked the courier with them.  Denying all other allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the complainant in person and Learned Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record. 

5.             The main grouse of the complainant is that on 14.07.2009, an envelop addressed to the Registrar, High Court of Uttrakhand Nainital, containing her application form for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the State of Uttrakhand was handed over to the OPs, for its delivery to the addressee latest by 16.07.2009 but the OPs had failed to deliver the same to the addressee due to which she has suffered a loss of an opportunity to appear for the said post. Annexure C-1 is the receipt issued by the OPs on 14.07.2009, which shows that the OPs accepted the said envelop under proper receipt to deliver it to the addressee.  The OPs had not been able to produce any documentary evidence/acknowledgment/POD from the addressee to show if the envelope in question was delivered by them to the addressee. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-5, which is the letter dated 10.03.2010, received from Registrar General of the Hon`ble High Court of Uttarkhand, Nainital addressed to the complainant, stating that ‘the application form of the complainant for H.J.S. Examination 2009 had not been received by their office till due date i.e.17.07.2009’.

6.      In the absence of any documentary evidence/ acknowledgement of delivery of the courier by the OPs, we are of the firm view that the OPs were negligent and deficient in service due to which the complainant has lost an opportunity to appear for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the State of Uttrakhand; since her application form did not reach the concerned authority in time. Hence, the argument of the Learned Counsel for the OPs is a futile attempt to evade compensation. As per the decision reported in 1993 (1) C.P.J. page 69, it has been stated that “Non-delivery” of envelope by  a Courier Service is deficiency in service and condition regarding compensation on the receipt is not binding upon the claimant. In another decision reported in 1994 (1) C.P.J. page 140=1994 (1) C.P.C. 135, wherein the Hon`ble National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission has held that mention of limited liability in very small prints at the back of the consignment is not a part of the negotiation of the parties.

7.             Hence, in our considered opinion, keeping in view the above mentioned decisions, given by the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others as well as the detailed analysis of the case, the present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance and it must succeed.  We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OPs 1 & 2 and pass the following directions :-

a.      According to the terms and conditions mentioned in the courier receipt, the OPs 1 & 2 shall pay to the complainant, a limited liability of Rs.100/- alongwith sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental & physical harassment as well as loss suffered by the complainant.

b.      The OPs shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

8.                      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay the said amount along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f 16.12.2009, i.e. the date of filing the present complaint, till the date of realization, besides paying the litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.