District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 437/2022.
Date of Institution:22.08.2022.
Date of Order:02.05.2023.
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar resident of House No. 14, Sector-18, H.B.C., Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Ondot Courier and Express Cargo, Office at 36, 2nd floor, DLF, Industrial Area Opp. Fun Cinema, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015 through its General Manager/Authorized Person.
2. Ondot Courier and Express Cargo, having its office at B-322, Nehru Ground, NIT, Opp. Punjab National Bank, New Industrial Town, Faridabad, Haryana – 121001.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Santosh Vatsa , counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte vide order dated 10.01.2023.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had taken a courier service for delivery of important documents from office of the opposite party to JSW Steel Limited, JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra. The complainant had sent the original share certificate of JSW Steel Limited worth Rs.25,000/-, stamp papers and NOC from legal heirs from opposite parity No.2 for a total price of Rs.407.5 vide their receipt bearing No. 18000478022 dated 29.12.2021. At the time of taking the service opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the courier packet would be delivered on time and safety to the receiver address. The courier packet was not yet delivered by the opposite parties to correct address and on repeatedly request of the complainant opposite parties failed to provide satisfactory answer and did not know the status of their courier packet. On 25.5.2022 complainant also sent a request letter dated 23.05.2022 via registered speed post to know the status of his courier packet from the opposite parties but same was not answered by the opposite party till today. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) making the payment of claimed amount to the complainant for the value of securities.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) making the payment of EMIs for the time they keep the claim.
d) any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. Upon receipt of the complaint notice was sent to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel but did not file the written statement on three dated. Thereafter neither the written statement has been filed nor none has put in appearance. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.01.2023.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Ondot Courier with the prayer to: a) making the payment of claimed amount to the complainant for the value of securities. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) making the payment of EMIs for the time they keep the claim.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex. Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Ashok Kumar, Ex.C-1 – courier receipt, Ex.C-2 – letter dated 23.05.2022, , Ex.C-3 & 4 – postal receipts, Mark- A – Share Certificate, Mark-B - Form to be signed by the surety proposed for the indemnity agreement, Mark-C – Indemnity bond, Mark-D – Affidavit, Mark-E – Affidavit of Renunciation/No Objection letter, Mark- F – Affidavit of Renunciation/No Objection letter,, Mark-G - Affidavit of Renunciation/No Objection letter,
6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties Nos1 & 2 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 & 2
7. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally, are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- in lump-sump to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 02.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
