Haryana

StateCommission

A/708/2015

KRISHNA TRAVELS SOLUTION - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL COMPUTERS - Opp.Party(s)

CHAND DEEP JINDAL

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      708 of 2015

Date of Institution:      28.08.2015

Date of Decision :       14.10.2015

 

1.     Krishna Travels Solution, Narang Bhawan, Hari Bag Colony, Assandh Road, Panipat, through its Proprietor.

 

2.     DTDC Panipat Branch, Shop No.5, near N.K. Tower, Panipat through its Manager at Branch Panipat.

 

3.     DTDC Delhi Office.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

National Computers, 8/3, Guru Nanak Pura, Kacha Camp, Panipat through its Sole Proprietor Sagar Kapur.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri C.D. Jindal, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri S.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Krishna Travels Solution, Panipat and others-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated May 22^nd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panipat, whereby it directed to pay Rs.34,950/- to National Computers, Panipat-Complainant/respondent alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.      National Computers-Complainant, booked a courier parcel package containing a Laptop Computer worth Rs.34,900/-, with the Opposite Parties-appellants on October 29^th, 2013, vide receipt Annexure C-1. However, the courier article was not delivered at the destination. The complainant inquired from the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties in their reply though admitted the booking of courier article, but took the plea that the same was not insured as required and therefore nothing was payable by them to the complainant.

4.      It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked a parcel package with the opposite parties, which contained a laptop computer worth Rs.34,950/- on October 29^th, 2013 but the same was not delivered at the destination. Copy of the bill is Annexure C-2 and receipt is Annexure C-3. Opposite Parties/appellants have not been able to account for disposal of the parcel. In this view of the matter the opposite parties have rightly been held deficient in service and are thus liable to compensate the complainant the price of the laptop alongwith interest. So, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

5.      The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.20,248/- 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 14.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL