Haryana

StateCommission

A/514/2016

POST MASTER - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH KUMAR SINGLA - Opp.Party(s)

NAMIT KUMAR

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     514 of 2016

Date of Institution:     06.06.2016

Date of Decision :     18.07.2016

 

 Post Master, Main Post Office, Hisar.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Naresh Kumar Singla age about 55 years, Kothi No.1285, Sector 14, Hisar.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Post Master, Hisar-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated April 29^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby it directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to Naresh Kumar Singla-Complainant/respondent on account of loss of books which were sent by the complainant through parcel.  

2.      The respondent-complainant booked a parcel vide receipt No.ACH005894454 dated 12.06.2014 with the Opposite Party-appellant, which contained books worth Rs.50,000/-. The parcel was to be delivered to Sandeep Rawat son of Ram Bhaj Rawat, R-20/9-D, New Navy Nagar, Kolaba Mumbai-400005. However, the parcel was not delivered at the destination. The complainant inquired from the opposite party but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed before the District Forum on 05.05.2015.

3.      The opposite party in its reply though admitted the booking of parcel, but took the plea that the same was delivered at Career Launcher EDNCAJE Ltd. 15-A, Knowledge Park-I, Greater Noida, on 05.09.2015. It was stated that the customer is supposed to insure the registered parcel as per value of its contents, so it (opposite party) cannot be made liable to pay any compensation to the complainant on account of loss of the parcel. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the opposite party as detailed in the paragraph No.1 of this order.  

5.      It is admitted case of the opposite party that the complainant had booked a parcel with the opposite party, which contained valuable books, on 12.06.2014 but it was not delivered at the destination, rather was delivered at wrong address. The opposite party-appellant has not been able to account for wrong delivery of the parcel. Even after matter being taken up with the opposite party, it did not take steps to get back parcel and deliver to correct addressee. In this view of the matter, the opposite party has rightly been held deficient in service and is thus liable to compensate the complainant. So, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

6.      Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 18.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL