Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/355

JASPREET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S FIRST FLIGHT COURIERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 355/12

Mrs. Jaspreet  Kaur

Prop. Of M/s  Body Flex Fitness Equipments,

WZ-50 A Choukhandi  Village,

Opp.  Choukhandi Extn.,

Near Lal Building School,

New Delhi-110018.                              ….                          Complainant

 

 

VERSUS

 

Managing Director/ Manager

First Flight  Courier Services

Plot No.2, Oberoi House,

Behind  Milan Cinema,

Karampura ,

New Delhi-110015                                ….                         Opposite Party                                                                                                

 

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant booked courier from Delhi to Pune  through respondent on 20.10.2010  vide receipt  no. 91100072427 and was supposed to be  delivered to M/s Orient  Sports , 247 M.G. Road, Pune,  Maharastra.  It has been averred in the complaint that when the consignment  was delivered  to M/s Orient Sports  it was found that some goods were short which were amounting to Rs. 25,600/-.  Thereafter   complainant   called upon  respondent about deficit delivery of consignment  to which OP assured  complainant  that he  would   trace out  the same  within four or five  days.  After few days complainant contacted  respondent at Karampura Branch about short delivery of goods but the staff present there flatly  refused to help the complainant .  Thereafter complainant tried to track down goods with the help of her husband and finally tracked down the goods in Pune warehouse of  the First Flight courier services.  The goods were found lying in the dust and the packing was also torn.  The complainant took photographs of the same.  It appears that OP committed negligence and deficiency in service towards plaintiff for not delivering the complete consignment.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed for award of Rs. 32,022/- towards lost goods and compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

2.     OP filed reply taking preliminary objections inter-alia the complainant had no locus-standi to file the complaint because consignment was  booked  by M/s  Body Flex Fitness Equipments  and not by  Ms Jaspreet  Kaur.  The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands   because all the goods booked were delivered to consignee at the time of delivery.  For the first time after a gap of  three months the  complainant wrote to OP with no clear details also as per clause 22 of  terms and condition  OP was not liable for any consequential or special  damages or indirect losses  due to loss or damage to the consignment.   On merits admitted the booking of consignment by complainant from Delhi to Pune  but denied  remaining contents of complaint.

 

3.     Thereafter the complainant was asked to lead evidence he filed affidavit of evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Vipin Verma, Deputy Legal Manager filed affidavit on behalf of OP.

4.        We have heard Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and thoroughly.

5.         Admittedly the consignment was booked by the complainant on 20.10.2010.  It is not clear from the contents of the complaint as to when  complainant came to know about deficit  delivery .  It is also not clear from complaint as to on which date complainant apprised OP about the same.  It is also not clear as to what kind of articles were found deficit or not delivered to the consignee.  The complainant has also not filed any document of consignee as regards deficit delivery. The photographs placed on record by complainant of alleged deficit goods do not lead us any where because they are not in any manner connected with the deficit delivery.  The complainant  filed only one document which is legal notice and that  appears to have been sent after about one year of booking of the consignment.  During this long year there was no communication between complainant and OP. Therefore, we conclude that complainant has miserably failed to establish her case by leading cogent evidence as to deficit delivery of consignment by OP.                                             

6.     Keeping in view the discussion stated above we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to substantiate it case against OP.  Therefore, the  complaint  is  dismissed.

        Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.                              

       File be consigned to the record room. 

        Announced this__ ­­­­­­­_25TH__  _ day of February, 2019.

 

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                   

PRESIDENT                                                           MEMBER