Haryana

Kurukshetra

41/2018

Jagdish lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

On Dot - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.41 of 2018.

Date of instt: 20.2.2018. 

                                                                            Date of Decision: 21.05.2019.

 

Jagdish Lal Gupta son of Sh. Bhagat Ram, resident of House No.943 Bhagwan Nagar Colony, Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                …..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. On Dot 61/3, Kirti Nagar, Furniture Block Delhi 110015.
2. On Dot Near Post Office, Pipli Kurukshetra.

……Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

                       

Present:     Complainant in person.

 Sh. Rajesh Sahai, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

         Opposite party no.2 exparte.

ORDER

                     This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jagdish Lal Gupta against On Dot, the opposite parties.

2.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 5.2.2018 complainant sent a courier through on dot couriers vide no.11002187344 but the said parcel has not reached at the given address till date due to which complainant has suffered loss of Rs.15,000/-. That as and when complainant asked about his courier, the ops postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and were giving false assurances that his courier has reached or will reach but they are not giving any delivery receipt. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objection that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed several material facts; that complainant had at no point approached the answering op regarding the issues being faced by him. It is further submitted that complainant has falsely implicated the answering op as the company had already informed the complainant about the policy of the company and also informed that the package has not been opened and checked and so whatever it contains is totally the responsibility of the complainant. Still further it is evident to state here that the answering op had nothing to do with the issues being faced by complainant relating to after sales services as the answering op had delivered a product that was packed and checked at the end of the complainant. It is further submitted that answering op is a courier company that ensures the delivery of the products at all costs. The complainant’s claim regarding the loss of amount to the tune of Rs.15,000/- is subject to availability of relevant records and can only be substantiated with relevant documents since the answering op did not know what packed and delivered to the answering op at the end of complainant. It is further submitted that answering op has at all times supported the complainant after the matter was apprised to the answering op and has at no point shrugged off its shoulders from helping out the complainant. It was at the behest of the answering op that an executive from the business associate Pipli was sent to the complainant premises time and again. Still further, the answering op can only help the complainant to the extent of making calls and asking the business associate to help out the complainant and even if after those efforts the complainant is not satisfied by the service, the answering op cannot lend a hand any further. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

4.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2. On the other hand, op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.

5.             The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the facts so set out by him in his complaint. The complainant has also placed on file courier receipt Ex.C2 which shows that complainant sent a courier through ops on 5.2.2018 and according to the complainant said courier has been lost and has not been delivered till date. The op no.1 has not placed on file any document to show that the courier was delivered at the given address. The op no.2 has not bothered to appear before this Forum rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. The complainant has alleged loss of Rs.15,000/- due to non delivery of the courier at the given address and the ops are liable to indemnify the said loss of the complainant as they are deficient in service.

6.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:21.05.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member