Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 505.
Instituted on : 31.08.2017.
Decided on : 12.09.2019.
Mohan Sharma son of Sh. Balwan Sharma r/o House no.1163/21, Prem Nagar, Hafed Road, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Ondot Courier & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., 8/42, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015 Through its MD/Incharge.
- On Dot Courier & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., SCO 30 Appu Ghar Complex, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Bhupesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that brother of complainant alongwith his family is residing in Auckland and the brother’s wife of complainant purchased various articles from Auckland total amounting to Rs.70000/- vide invoice dated 28.11.2016 and she sent the same to the complainant. That the said articles were to be delivered to the brother of brother’s wife who is residing in Mumbai and accordingly, the complainant packed the said articles in a parcel and sent the same to Mumbai from Rohtak through the opposite party No.2 on 01.03.2017 and a receipt no.714248457 was issued by the opposite party No.2 who is authorized agent of opposite party no.1. That the said courier has yet not reached its destination. The complainant went to the opposite party and enquired about the courier but no satisfactory reply was given. That till today the parcel has not been delivered by the opposite parties whereas period of more than 5 months has expired. That the act of opposite parties of non delivery of courier is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the cost of items amounting to Rs.70000/- alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant is not entitled to file any complaint being seeking the service of the OPs free of charge. Despite the fact that the services obtained by the complainant were free of cost, the opposite parties specifically asked the complainant at the time of booking if the envelop/consignment needs to be insured? To which the complainant rejected the same by stating that consignment was of insignificant value and opted not to take any insurance cover upon the same. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That complainant has not obtained the services of the opposite party no.1 so the question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties does not arise. That opposite parties have not received any legal notice as alleged. That the complainant is not entitled to any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.07.2018. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 08.04.2019.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy of courier receipt dated 01.03.2017 complainant had booked a parcel to Mumbai. But the same has not been reached on its destination. As per the track report placed on record by the complainant Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, the alleged parcel is shown – ‘in Transit’. A bare perusal of the documents shows that booked consignment could not reach at the destination. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. As per his complaint, complainant has demanded an amount of Rs.70000/- for the value of articles booked by him. But the courier receipt Ex.C6 shows that there is nothing about the value and contents of the consignment. Hence he is only entitled for the compensation on account of deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.09.2019.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
