Date of Institution : 21.07.2011

                                                                               Date of Decision    :29.09.2011

                                                                               ---------------------------------------

 

Sh. Aman Kumar son of Sh. Subhash Chander resident of House No.399/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                                    ---Complainant.

1.         M/s Arora Stationery, Shop No.91, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Arora.

2.         M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Limited, SCO No.365, First Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

 

Argued By:    Sh. Aman Kumar, complainant in person.

                        OPs already exparte.

 

                        Sh. Aman Kumar 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.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental torture and loss of study.

ii)                   To pay all other expenses incurred by the complainant on travelling, communication etc.

iii)                 To pay the costs of litigation.

iv)                 To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit.

2.                     In brief the case of the complainant is that on 12.01.2011, he sent a courier to H.P. University, Shimla containing therein a Demand Draft of Rs.2,520/- bearing No.621747 dated 12.01.2011 along with an application for appearance in examination of M.Com (2^nd Semester) through OP No.1 vide receipt No.12.01.2011 (Annexure C-2). The complainant was also given two mobile Nos.9129079799 and 9816250370 for confirmation of the documents. It is averred that after one month, the complainant received student registration number and the date sheet from the H.P. University. As per the date sheet, on 14.06.2011, he reached the examination centre i.e. Khalsa School, Sector 30, Chandigarh but was shocked to see that the University had not issued any roll number to him for the said exam. On contacting the University staff, he came to know that they have not received the fee as well as other documents. According to the complainant, he immediately approached OP No.1 and was told that the courier was sent by OP No.2. He immediately approached OP No.2, who admitted its mistake vide letter (Annexure C-3) that the courier was not delivered to University. Thereafter, the complainant approached the examination centre and requested the said authorities to allow him to appear in the examination. After several efforts, he was allowed to sit in the examination on 14.06.2011. The complainant was also asked by the authorities to go to Shimla and obtain permission to sit in the next paper. On 16.06.2011, when the complainant approached University at Shimla, he was asked to deposit the fee again along with late fee. The complainant accordingly deposited a sum of Rs.2,520/- as original fee plus Rs.1,500/- as late fee. According to the complainant, OPs misplaced the Demand Draft of Rs.2,520/- due to which he suffered huge financial loss. According to the complainant, non delivery of the courier amounts to deficiency in service.    

                        In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                     OPS were duly served but they refused to accept the summons. As refusal was a good service, therefore, OPs were ordered to be proceeded against vide order dated 07.09.2011.

6.                     Admittedly, a Demand Draft of Rs.2,520/- bearing No.621747 dated 12.01.2011 along with an application for appearance in the examination of M.Com (2^nd Semester) was sent by the complainant to H.P. University situated at Shimla through OP No.1 vide receipt No.12.01.2011 (Annexure C-2). Vide letter (Annexure C-3) written by OP No.2 to the H.P. University, Shimla, it has been categorically admitted by OP No.2 that as per their confirmation, the courier/packet in question has not been delivered at the H.P. University. It amounts to deficiency in service.

7.                     However, later on, the complainant was allowed to appear in examination on payment of late fee of Rs.1,500/-.

8.                     Thus, the complainant had to suffer mental and physical agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                     Coming to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainant, it is pertinent to mention here that on the Courier Receipt (Annexure C-2), it is specifically printed in fine prints that “If not covered by special risk surcharges, claim value on this shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) for parcels and Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) for packet of Documents”. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to show that he paid any special risk surcharges to the OPs. Thus, he is only entitled for a sum of Rs.100/- as mentioned in the above said clause, as clearly printed on the Courier Receipt dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure C-2).                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

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