Sri Sushanta Dora, filed a consumer case on 19 Mar 2010 against Raj Communication in the Bargarh Consumer Court. The case no is CC/09/72 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Orissa
Bargarh
CC/09/72
Sri Sushanta Dora, - Complainant(s)
Versus
Raj Communication - Opp.Party(s)
Sri A.K.Joshi
19 Mar 2010
ORDER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT) DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT),AT:COURT PREMISES,PO/DIST:BARGARH,PIN:768028,ORISSA consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/72
Sri Sushanta Dora,
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Raj Communication Goodluck Commercial Service,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA 2. SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sri A.K.Joshi
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President . The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protect Act and its brief fact is as follows:- The Complainant send one packet containing a Cellular phone through the Opposite Parties to one Tutu Barik of Keonjhar on Dt.03/08/2009 and the Opposite Party has issued a receipt bearing No. 35846 to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has assured the Complainant that the packet will be delivered with in three days but the same was not delivered to Tutu Barik. Complainant informed the matter to Opposite Party No.2(two) and on inquiry in the office of Good Luck Commercial Service, Keonjhar, the packet was not received by the Good Luck Commercial Service, Keonjhar. There after the Complainant repeatedly demanded to return the packet but till date the Opposite Parties have neither return the packet nor the acknowledgment of receipt or any delivery receipt to the Complainant. On Dt. 28/10/2009, the Complainant has also requested, through letter to the Opposite Parties but till date neither the Opposite Parties replied to the letter nor take any action about the complain and remain silent. Hence this case. The Complainant claims, to return the packet containing the mobile set or the cost of the packet i.e. Rs. 2,600/-(Rupees two thousand six hundred)only, Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards litigation cost for the deficiency and negligence in service by the Opposite Parties. Notice was duly served on Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.1(one) set ex-parte for his non-appearance. The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version denied all the allegation made against it. It contend that as per the term and condition, the Complainant was not supposed to sent any valuable goods since the same was not insured. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is not liable for any compensation since there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.2(two) prays for dismissal of the case with cost. The Complainant has filed copy of pleader notice, receipt of registered letter sent to Opposite Parties and receipt given by Opposite Parties to the Complainant in support of his case. On proper perusal of the copy of documents it is ascertained that, the Complainant has send one packet to one Tutu Barik of Keonjhar on Dt. 03/08/2009 and after receipt of the packet the Opposite Party No.2(two) issued an acknowledgment in favour of the Complainant. But the Opposite Party did not delivered the packet to the addressee at Keonjhar for which the Complainant send pleader notice to the Opposite Parties. Neither the Complainant has discloses the contents of the packet nor the same was insured. The receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) also does not disclose that the Complainant has send a Cellular phone of Blue make of Rs.2,600/-(Rupees two thousand six hundred)only in that packet. The Complainant has failed to adduced any evidence either in shape of affidavit or in any other form to prove that he has sent a Cellular phone in that packet. The Complainant has sent one packet to one Tutu Barik of Keonjhar but the packet did not reached to its destination and it was not delivered to Tutu Barik. The Opposite Parties are duty bound to delivered the packet to the consignee for which they have received the service charge. But for the deficient and negligent act of the Opposite Parties, the packet did not received by Tutu Barik of Keonjhar. In view of above discussion the Complainant has well established a case of deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant. Complaint allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation towards mental agony and cost of the case within thirty days hence, failing which the amount shall carry 18% interest per annum till the date of payment. Complaint allowed accordingly.
......................MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA ......................SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.