Haryana

Karnal

CC/97/2016

Dr. Ravi Varma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Trackon Couriers Privat Limited - Opp.Party(s)

V.B. Bhatti

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.97 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 30.03.2016

                                                         Date of decision:12.01.2018

 

Dr. Ravi Verma son of Shri Balu Ram Verma, now resident of flat no.z/c 586, Ground Floor, CHD City, Sector 45, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. A-64, Narina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028, through M.D/ Authorized Signatory.

2. M/s Trackon Couriers Services, 187 Mugal Canal, Karnal through its prop./Franchisee.

                                     

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

             

 

 Present  Shri V.B.Bhatti Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Rakesh Malik Advocate for OPs.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he was in need of an emergent medicine for treatment of patient as the treatment of the patient was going on at Jaipur, but due to fresh assignment of the complainant at Kalyani Hospital, Karnal, he shifted to Karnal and settled at CHD City, Karnal and being MBBS Doctor is practicing in the Kalyani Hospital, being specialist Anesthesiologist and medicine. The patient is his wife who was taking the treatment from Jaipur. His close relative is residing at Jaipur who was requested by him to get purchased the medicine after consulting the doctor concern and sent the same by courier services. Shri S.M.Saini dispatched the consignment i.e. medicine on 20.1.2016 through the franchisee of OP no.1 at Jaipur, who furnished the receipt of dispatched in his name. The complete address was mentioned on the consignment with mobile number. The payment of the medicines and expenses of the courier have already been given by him to Shri S.M. Saini, as such he become the consumer. He waited sufficient time for the medicine but he could not receive the consignment. He sent the e-mail to the OP no.1 as well as to his regional office at Chandigarh on 1.2.2016. But no response was given by the OPs. Thereafter, he obtained the status report of the said consignment through customer care by making telephone call at no.011-45593500. Thereafter, he received a telephone from Trackon company where the information has been received by the complainant that his consignment has  been dispatched from Jaipur to Delhi by MAN no.BD-3688458 dated 20.1.2016 on 20.27 p.m.. The Delhi head quarter sent the said consignment to Karnal, vide BD no.3707320 on 21.1.2016 at 20.57 p.m. He got lodged the complaint by complaint no.901487 with customer care cell of the OPs. According to the status report it has been proved that the consignment has  been received by the OP no.2 from Delhi office but he kept the same with him and did not make delivery of the same to the complainant by providing the better service to him. He tried to contact the OP no.2 for getting the consignment but OP no.2 did not give any response about the consignment.  Till date he has not received the consignment which was very important as it contains medicines for treatment of his wife. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections stating therein that a consignment was booked in the name of the complainant at Jaipur for Karnal on 20.1.2016. The contents of the consignment are not known to the OPs as the same were not declared at the time of booking. The consignment could not be delivered to the consignee/complainant as the address of the consignee was incorrectly mentioned and was incomplete. The representative of the OPs could not locate the address of the consignee despite best efforts and consignor was informed that the packet was lying undelivered because of incorrect address. However, despite of lapse of considerable time no feedback was received from consignor and hence the packet was returned by Karnal branch of the OPs to the Origin station Jaipur. The consignor was returned this packet safely on 16.2.2016 at Jaipur after taking due acknowledgment. The address mentioned in the consignment booked was: Dr. Ravi Verma, 2/C Ground Floor, CHD City, Sector 45 Karnal Haryana in which no house number is mentioned while the address mentioned in the petition is flat no.z/c 586 ground floor, CHD City, Sector-45 Karnal. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 7.11.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Vishwakarma Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 19.7.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that the wife of the complainant is a patient, who taking treatment from Jaipur from specialist doctor for whom the complainant was in need of emergent medicine, so the complainant asked his relative at Jaipur, namely Shri S.M. Saini to purchase the medicine and sent through courier. Accordingly Sh. S.M.Saini sent the same on 20.1.2016 through the franchise of OP no.1 at Jaipur and informed the complainant. He further argued that the consignment was not received by the complainant. After waiting for a sufficient time, the complainant sent email to OP no.1 as well as to its regional office at Chandigarh but no response was received by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant obtained status report of the consignment through customer care, according to which the consignment was dispatched from Jaipur to Delhi by MAN no.BD-3688458 dated 20.1.2016 at 20.27 p.m. and from Delhi to Karnal vide MAN no.BD-3707320 on 21.1.2016 at 20.57 p.m. He further argued that the consignment has been received by OP no.2 but the OP no.2 did not make the delivery of the same to the complainant, due to which the condition of complainant’s wife started deteriorated. The complainant was compelled to consult specialist at Karnal on 1.2.2016 and get treatment.

 7.            On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs argued that the complainant is not a consumer of OPs as the consignment was dispatched by Sh.S.M. Saini, who paid for the consignment.  No doubt this has not been taken by the OPs in their reply but it is a legal and material fact which is to be proved by the complainant. He further argued that there is no dispute that a consignment was booked in the name of complainant at Jaipur for Karnal on 20.1.2016 but the contents of the consignment were not known to the OPs as the same were not declared at the time of booking. He further argued that the consignment could not be delivered to the consignee/complainant as the address of the consignee was not complete and due to this reason the representative of the OPs could not locate the address despite best efforts. He further argued that the address mentioned in the booked consignment was “Dr. Ravi Verma 2/c ground floor, CHD City, Sector-45, Karnal- Haryana” in which no house number was mentioned. Whereas address mentioned in the petition is “Flat no.z/c,586 ground floor, CHD City, Sector-45, Karnal” so the address on the booked consignment was not complete. Due to this reason the consignment could not be delivered and accordingly the same was returned to the consignor on 16.2.2016 which was acknowledged by the consignor by affixing his signature and in this regard the learned counsel for OPs referred the documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. He further argued that  though there was no deficiency on the part of the OPs but if this Forum find any deficiency even then the compensation equal to courier charges can be awarded as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in authority cited in 2016 (2) CLT 134 (NC) titled as Anita Rani Vs. Department of Posts & Anr.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that on 20.1.2016 a consignment was booked by one Shri S.M. Saini from Jaipur for Karnal and same was not delivered to the consignee and returned back to the consignor. According to the OPs, the consignment could not be delivered to the consignee as the consignment did not contain the complete address of the consignee. The OPs have placed on the file Ex.R-2 the Photostat copy of envelope showing the address of the consignee. On perusal of Ex.R2, it is very much clear that the house number has not been mentioned on the envelope and 2/c is mentioned instead of z/c. It is pertinent to mention here that even the mobile/telephone number of consignee has not been mentioned on the envelop. Therefore, the contention of the OPs that the consignment could not be delivered due to incomplete address has force. The consignment has been returned and obtained by the consignor is also clear from document Ex.R-1 placed on the file by the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that the consignment was booked by Sh. S.M. Saini, the consignor, who paid for hiring the services of the OPs and the complainant has not paid any consideration for hiring the services of the OPs. So the contention of the OPs that the complainant is not their consumer has force as he did not come under the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. As admitted by the OPs that this plea has not been taken by the OPs in their reply, so besides this even otherwise on merits the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs. Hence we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 12.1.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)        (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member                 Member