Haryana

StateCommission

A/322/2015

TRACK ON COURIER PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHUL AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV SHARMA

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      322 of 2015

Date of Institution:      08.04.2015

Date of Decision :       20.07.2015

 

 

 

Trackon Couriers Private Limited, C-143, Naraina Industrial Phase, New Delhi-110028, A company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, through its AGM Kanwaljit Singh (authorized representative).

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Rahul (minor) son of Shri Ishwar Singh s/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Resident of Ward No.1, Jakhal, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, through his next friend and natural guardian father Shri Ishwar Singh.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Trackon Couriers Private Limited, Branch Office, Subhash Chowk, Sabji Mandi, Jakhal, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad through its Proprietor Tarun Kumar.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ishwar Singh-father of minor respondent-Rahul.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi-Opposite Party No.2, is in appeal against the order dated February 18^th, 2015, of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Fatehabad, whereby it directed to pay Rs.30,000/- in lump sum as compensation to Rahul-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) on account of delay in delivering the article sent by him through the courier.

2.      After passing 10+2 examination, the complainant applied for admission in National Dairy Research Institute (for short ‘NDRI’), Bangalore, for a Diploma Course of Dairy Technology. He sent his application alongwith a Demand Draft of Rs.600/-, through courier-opposite party No.2, vide receipt (Annexure C-2) dated April 30^th, 2014. The closing date for receiving the applications in the NDRI, Bangalore, was May 3^rd, 2014. The courier article was received at the destination on May 5^th, 2014 and therefore complainant’s application was not entertained by NDRI. He could not appear in the entrance examination which was conducted by NDRI on May 20^th, 2014. Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the article was received in the office of the appellant at Bangalore on May 01^st, 2014.  It could not be delivered on May 01^st, 2014 because the office of NDRI was closed on account of May Day and Shiv Jayanti.  On May 02^nd, 2014, an attempt was made to deliver the article but again the office was found closed due to holiday on account of Basava Jayanti.  The office was closed on 3^rd and 4^th on account of Saturday and Sunday.  The article was delivered on May 05^th, 2014.    

4.      The District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      It is not in dispute that the article was received by the appellants in their office at Bangalore on May 01^st, 2014.  The courier agency visited the office of NDRI on the same day but the office was found to be closed on account of holiday.  The next three days, that is, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th were also holidays and office of NDRI was closed.  It is also so mentioned in the Calender of Karnataka Government (Annexure A).  In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Commission, the appellant, that is, courier agency tried its best to handover the article immediately on its receipt to the NDRI office but could not be delivered being holidays.  So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. 

6.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.16,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 20.07.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL