DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 323 of 12-11-07<br /> Decided on : 05-02-2008<br /> <br /> Harbilas aged about 58 years S/o Sh. Roshan Lal C/o Mittal Flour Mill, Bagha Road, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Munish Kumar, Prop/Incharge, Trackon Courier Service, Gandhi Chowk, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> 2.M/s. Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd., 59 Community Centre, Narayana Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Owner.<br /> 3.M/s Trackon Courier S.C.O. No. 4, Joining Orsis Hotel K Mall Car Bazar, Near Bus Stand, Ludhiana through its Manager.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Lavneesh Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Exparte.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for mental tension, agony, harassment and loss to his health.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that on 14.7.07 an envelop containing revaluation form of his daughter was sent through courier i.e. opposite party No. 1 vide receipt No. 63435727. His daughter was to get her M.A. Part-II papers revaluated. Although result was declared yet Detail of marks card dated 3.7.07 was subsequently received by her. Envelop sent through courier was to be supplied to his daughter through opposite party No. 3. His daughter Sunita Rani is presently putting up at Mullanpur Dakha in her in laws house. Postal address of their shop as Garg Trunk House Near Punjab National Bank, Mullanpur was given on the envelop. Mobile No. 94171-91597 was also mentioned on the envelop. Form which was sent to Sunita was to be submitted by her to Punjabi University, Patiala within 14 days from the date of declaration of the result. It was assured by opposite party No. 1 that courier service would be made available to the addressee either on 15th or 16th July, 2007 through opposite party No. 3. Opposite parties failed to deliver the courier at the destination within the disclosed period. It was delivered on 19.7.07. Uptill that date, last date for submitting the Form for revaluation of the papers of M.A. Part-II had expired. It is alleged that one year of his daughter has gone wasted. She has become in-eligible to get job in proper institution. She is under stress and mental agony. She has to appear again in M.A. Part-II examination. She has to spend more money and time for another one year. Opposite party No. 1 was approached and requested to bear the loss, but to no effect. He got served legal notice through his counsel. Opposite party N. 2 sent reply of it and ultimately refused to pay the compensation.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. They appeared through Mr. Mahesh Kakkar, their authorised representative on 28.12.07 and filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action; complaint has been filed in order to harass them and to make illegal gains and this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as according to Clause No. 7 of the agreement, all disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Delhi. On merits, they deny that opposite parties had ever assured the complainant that courier would reach either on 15.7.07 or 16.7.07. Inter-alia their plea is that complainant himself was negligent. If it is taken that courier/envelop was containing revaluation Form, even then, complainant was hopelessly late in submitting the same since he says that result was declared on 3.7.07 and he bothered to send the Form only on 14.7.07 i.e. after delay of 11 days. There is no evidence when did he received the detail of marks card. As per normal schedule, the transit period from Rama Mandi to Mullanpur is 48 hours for delivery. The chronology of transit days have been explained as under :<br /> “14.7.07 Consignment was booked, a Saturday<br /> 15.7.07 Sunday, Off day<br /> 16.7.07 Reached Ludhiana<br /> 17.7.07 Reached destination, servant available in the Shop told the delivery man of opposite parties that owner(consignee) is not available and he refused to accept. Delivery man left phone number of opposite parties.<br /> 18.7.07 Received a call from the consignee and he confirmed to accept the same<br /> 19.7.07 Consignment delivered accordingly.”<br /> It is added by them that above chronology makes it clear that they delivered the consignment in time despite odds and as such, there is no negligence on their part. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Question regarding territorial jurisdiction was decided by this Forum on 16.1.08. It was held that this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.<br /> 5. On 24.1.08 no-one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Accordingly, they have been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 6. Complainant in exparte evidence has produced his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of courier receipt (Ex. C-2), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letter dated 14.9.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of envelop of front page (Ex. C-5) and photocopy of Revaluation Form (Ex. C-6).<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. In order to establish his case, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1 reiterating his version. Ex. C-2 is the courier receipt which shows that consignment was booked by the complainant and the name of consignee is Garg Trunk House, Near Punjab National Bank. Mullanpur. Courier has been shown to have been received on 19.7.07 at 1.45 p.m. by one Sushil Kumar. Legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties and copy of the same is Ex. C-3. Its reply was sent by M/s. Trackon Courier Limited on 14.9.07<br /> 9. Leaned counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party No. 1 had assured the complainant that courier would reach the destination either on 15.7.07 or 16.7.07. Despite this, it was delivered on 19.7.07 on account of which daughter of the complainant could not submit the revaluation Form sent through it to the concerned office of Punjabi University, Patiala and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which complainant deserves to be compensated.<br /> 10. We have considered the submission. Complainant has not explained as to on which date the detail of marks card was received by his daughter. Courier was sent on 14.7.07. As per version of the complainant revaluation Form was required to be submitted in the office of Punjabi University within 14 days from the date of declaration of result i.e upto 17.7.07. Fact that complainant sent the revaluation Form through courier on 14.7.07 reveals that he was not vigilant enough. It is not a case where revaluation form in the envelop got booked with opposite party No. 1 was to be delivered to the Punjabi University straightway. Courier was first to reach the destination i.e. Mullanpur Dhakha where daughter of the complainant is putting up. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that courier could reach Mullanpur within 2 days even then the submission of the revaluation form was risky although not impossible. Affidavit Ex. C-1 of the complainant stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Mr. Mahesh Kakkar which was submitted by him alongwith reply of the complaint. In his affidavit, he has reiterated the averments in the reply of the complaint. Mode of its delivery has been explained in the reply of the complaint. Consignment was booked on Saturday. 15.7.07 was Sunday. Hence it was an Off day. On 16.7.07 courier had reached Ludhiana. On 17.7.07 it had reached the destination. Owner/consignee was not available at the shop. Only servant was available and he refused to accept the courier from the delivery man. In such situation, delivery man had left the phone number of the opposite parties at the shop. On 18.7.07 call was received from the consignee for accepting the courier. Accordingly, consignment was delivered on 19.7.07. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us any rules or regulation of the opposite courier service showing mandatory duration period for delivery of such courier. Hence there is no deliberate or intentional delay/deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. To the contrary, complainant himself was not careful enough to send the revaluation form well in time and took the risk in sending it through courier on 14.7.07.<br /> 11. In the result complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 05-02-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />