DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:419 of 2010] Date of Institution:21.07.2010 Date of Decision : 19.07.2011 Sh. Surinder Singh, Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Kothi No.10, First Floor, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. …..Complainant. Versus 1. On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited, through its Chairman 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi-ll0015 (Contact No.91-11-33558888 & Fax No.91-11-39813981). 2. On Dot Courier & Cargo Limited, through Sh. Hem Raj Tiwar, C/o H.No.16, Sector 15, Chandigarh, Manager Incharge, Branch Chandigarh, Chandigarh. {Note: OPs No.3 to 6 have been deleted vide order dated 16.2.2011} ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Surinder Singh, Complainant in person. Sh. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT. Sh. Surinder Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:- (i) To pay Rs.18 Lacs as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service along with interest 12% interest; (ii) To pay the costs of litigation. 2. Initially the complaint was filed against six parties. However on 16.2.2011, the complainant made the following statement: - “I do not press the complaint against OPs No.3 to 6. These names be deleted from the array of the OPs.” In view of the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the names of OPs No.3 to 6 were deleted. So, now the complaint is against OPs No.1 and 2 only. 3. In brief the case of the complainant is that he is a practicing Advocate. He was doing LLM from Kurukshetra University. His registration number was 06-DF-664. He had appeared in LLM (Part I) examination in the year 2009. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the result. So, he wanted to appear in the supplementary examination to improve his marks. The said examination was to be held in the year 2010. The complainant sent the examination forms along with demand draft to the Kurukshetra University for appearing in the said examination. An envelop containing the examination forms and the demand draft was handed over to OPs No.1 and 2 for being delivered to the University on 17.5.2010. The case of the complainant is that OPs did not deliver the said envelop containing the examination forms to the University in time and ultimately returned the said letter to the complainant on 28.6.2010. By that time, the last date for submission of the examination form had expired. As per the complainant, either the OPs should have delivered the letter to the University or the letter should have been returned to the complainant in time, so that he could have resubmitted the same to the University in time. Thus, according to the complainant, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the aforementioned relief. 4. In the written statement filed by OPs, it has been admitted that a envelop containing the examination forms and the demand draft was handed over to the OPs on 17.5.2010. According to the OPs, the said envelop was delivered to Kurukshetra University on 19.5.2010 but the officials of the University refused to accept the same as by that time, the last date for submission of examination form was over and the envelop containing three forms of different departments. According to the OPs, the complainant should have been vigilant regarding the rules and regulations for submitting the forms and should have sent the forms well in time. In these circumstances, according to the OPs, failure on the part of the complainant to appear in the examination is not because of the any deficiency in service on the part of OPs whereas it is because of the negligence on the part of the complainant himself. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 5. We have heard the complainant in person, the learned counsel for OPs and have perused the record. 6. The admitted facts are that an envelop containing the examination forms and the demand draft was handed over to the OP No.1 and 2 on 17.5.2010. The said envelop contained the examination forms as the complainant wanted to reappear in the supplementary examination to be held by the Kurukshetra University in the year 2010. The case of OPs is that it delivered the said envelop to the said University on 19.5.2010 but the University refused to accept the said letter on two grounds i.e. firstly, the last date for submission of the examination form had already expired and secondly, the letter contained three forms of different departments. So, according to the OPs, the complainant should have sent the forms in separate envelops to three different departments. Therefore, according to the OPs, the envelops was returned to the complainant on 28.6.2010. 7. It was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the complainant that by 28.6.2010, the last date for submission of examination forms had expired. So, the complainant could not appear in the supplementary examination for improvement of his marks. So, returning of envelop to the complainant on 28.6.2010 amounts to deficiency in service. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that neither in the complaint, the last date for submission of the form has been mentioned nor has any evidence been produced on record to prove the last date for submission of the examination forms. On the other hand, in the affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Puri, Administrative Manager, it has been deposed on behalf of OPs that the last date for submission of the form had expired on19.5.2010 itself and the envelop was returned on this ground by the University. If the last date for submission of the examination form had expired on 19.5.2010 i.e. the date the envelop was delivered by the OPs to the University, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the complainant by return of the said envelop on 28.6.2010. 9. Admittedly, the envelop was handed over to the OPs on 17.5.2010 and it was delivered to the University on 19.5.2010 well within time. 10. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. So, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 19th July, 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/- (DISTRICT FORUM-II) COMPLAINT CASE NO.419 OF 2010 [ORDER] Argued By: None. --- The case was reserved on 14.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 19.07.2011 [PRESIDENT] [MEMBER]
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
