Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/2361

MADHUR COURIER SER. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAMAY DRISHTHI - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2361 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 24.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.23/2013 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

MADHUR COURIER SERVICES,

NAGAR NIGAM MARKET, FIRST FLOOR,

KATRA BAZAR, SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                   … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

M/S SAMAY DRISHTI,

THROUGH ASHISH AGRAWAL, PROPRIETOR,

PARKOTA HILLS, TEEN BATTI CHOURAHA,

SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                                              …. RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Mohan Chouksey, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel appearing for the respondent pleaded no instructions.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 01.05.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This is an appeal filed by the opposite party/appellant-Madhur Courier Services (hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party’) against the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.23/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is allowed.

-2-

2.                The facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that he is doing business of watch, spectacles, mobile in Sagar. It is submitted that on 04.08.2012 he booked two parcels with the opposite party for their delivery to Bhopal office of Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Indore for which the opposite party took Rs.40/- for each parcel and had given receipt nos. 1150435482 & 1150435483. It is alleged that parcel booked vide receipt no.1150435483 did not reach to its destination i.e. Bhopal. The said parcel contained 10 batteries, 2 main board and 9 blade main board costing Rs.64,330/-.It is alleged that the Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Indore is demanding the amount of bill dated 17.09.2012. It is alleged that the opposite party did not respond to notice dated 26.12.2012 & 28.12.2012 to pay cost of the articles contained in the parcel. The complainant suffered extensive damages and loss. The complainant therefore approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party seeking cost of articles Rs.64,330/-, and compensation of Rs.15,000/- .   

3.                The District Commission closed the right of the opposite party to file reply to the complaint on 13.09.2013 as despite number of opportunities, the opposite party failed to file reply to the complaint.

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay cost of articles Rs.64,330/- contained in the lost parcel 

-3-

along with cost of booking Rs.40/- to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 8.5% p.a. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service along with Rs.1,000/- towards costs is also awarded. Hence this appeal by the opposite party.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint without appreciating the material available on record. The District Commission has further erred in considering the statement of the complainant that out of two parcels only one parcel was delivered and he has no knowledge about the second parcel. At the time of booking valuable articles, the customer is suggested to insure the parcel and valuable articles are packed before the customer. The complainant did not send the articles as stated in his complaint. Even otherwise, in the receipts it has been specifically mentioned that no claim is payable after 15 days and for the uninsured parcels the opposite party is liable to pay only Rs.100/-. The District Commission has also erred in considering this fact that the complainant is doing business and he booked the parcel for commercial purpose and therefore he is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer

 

-4-

Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). It is thus prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the appeal be allowed. 

7.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that except complaint and affidavit, the complainant has not filed a single document in support of his complaint. The complainant has also not filed the receipt nos. 1150435482 & 1150435483 alleged to have been issued by the opposite party towards his booked parcels.  He has also not filed any evidence that the alleged consignment sent via receipt no.1150435483 contained valuable articles such as 10 batteries, 2 main board and 9 blade main board costing Rs.64,330/-. He has also not filed any bills to show that from where he had purchased the said goods.

8.                When there is no receipt no. 1150435483 regarding parcel containing valuable articles booked with the opposite party, how it can be presumed that he had booked the said parcel containing valuable articles costing Rs.64,330/-. We failed to understand that without any documentary evidence available on record, how the District Commission concluded that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not delivering the parcel containing articles costing Rs.64,330/- booked via alleged receipt no. 1150435483, more particularly when there is no such receipt.

 

-5-

9.                When there is no receipt, it cannot be presumed that the complainant availed services of the opposite party after paying consideration. For the arguments sake, even if it is presumed that the complainant booked the parcels with the opposite party, we find that the service in question was hired by the complainant for commercial purpose as he has nowhere mentioned in his complaint that he is doing business exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and has hired the service for the same.

10.              In view of the above discussion and in facts and circumstances, of the case, we find that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint without any documentary evidence available on record as also when the complaint is not maintainable. We are of a considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 

11.              In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.

           

          (A. K. Tiwari)     (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

    Presiding Member           Member                       Member