DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 205/2016
Date of Institution : 20.01.2016
Date of Decision : 30.05.2016
Vinay Kumar aged 35 years son of Devinder Kumar Prop/Partner of M/s Zimidara Tractor Store, Dhanaula Road, Barnala Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., Near Dr. Hari Gopal, Nehru Chowk, Backside Sadar Bazaar, Barnala through its Prop/Partner/ Authorized Signatory/Dealer/Agent Ashok Kumar.
2. M/s. Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd., A-84, Narina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-112088 through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Goyal counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Vinay Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short as Act) against M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt Ltd and another (in short as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite party is carrying on the business of courier services through out India including at Barnala. The complainant has sent sweets to his relatives on the festival of Dussehra through opposite party courier service vide receipts No. 471164193 to 471164202 dated 19.10.2015 and paid Rs. 2,040/- as charges. It is further averred that the packets of sweets were sent to different destinations and thus the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties.
3. It is alleged that the parcels containing sweets were delivered late and in some cases these were not delivered at all and the record of non delivery is also available with the opposite party. It is further alleged that due to late delivery of packets, the sweets became unfit for human consumption which caused embarrassment, harassment and mental agony to the complainant and his reputation is lowered in the eyes of his relatives. It is also alleged that each packet contained sweets worth Rs. 1,000/- which were spoiled. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To refund Rs. 2,040/- being charges for booking of packets.
2) To pay Rs. 90,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs of proceedings.
4) To pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.10.2015.
4. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. Sh. Ashok Kumar Business Associates appeared on behalf of opposite parties and filed his authority letter. However on the next date of hearing i.e. 21.4.2016 neither the said person appeared nor any other one on their behalf have appeared, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copies of courier receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone the record on the file carefully.
7. The case of the complainant is that he purchased 10 packets of sweets for Rs. 10,000/- and these were sent through courier service of opposite party and these sweets were spoiled and delivered late. However, the complainant has not placed on file any purchase voucher showing the purchasing of sweets worth Rs. 10,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,000/- for each packet.
8. The second submission of the complainant is that since the sweets were delivered late, therefore, these became unfit for human consumption. Again the complainant failed to place on record any affidavit of any relative to show that the said sweets were became unfit for human consumption. No test report is produced neither the sweets were sent to the testing lab. Even, there is no evidence to indicate that after consumption of sweets the persons/relatives had fallen ill and due to that the complainant was lowered in their eyes. In the absence of any purchase bill it cannot be held that packets of sweets were delivered late. Even, no evidence led by the complainant to show that when these packets were delivered to the relatives so as to prove that these were delivered late. Onus is upon the complainant to prove that the packets were delivered late which he has failed to discharge. Only courier receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-14 placed on record do not lend any help to the complainant to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. As a result of above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
30th Day of May 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
