DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 93/2014

Capt. Akshay Hasija,

R/o 90/21,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017                                                    … Complainant    

          Ms Sarita Kalia,

          DTDC, 90/60, Malviaya Nagar

New Delhi 110017                                                 …Opposite party

                                              Date of Institution:     06.02.14                   Date of Order :     01.06.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Complainant’s case, in brief, is that on 27.09.2013 he had booked a packet containing a Samsung Phone Batch No. 355884053916654 vide consignment No. V14301746 from the OP and got it insured for Rs.15,200/-  and paid Rs.304/- as the insurance charges to the insurer DTDC. The consignment did not  reach its destination within 03 days from the date of consignment or thereafter and the OP did not give any satisfactory reply; that ultimately the OP informed  him that the consignment in question  had been stolen/ misplaced from his office.  The OP did not make any effort to trace out the consignment. The complainant reported the matter to the police on 20.11.2013 and sent a legal notice dated 02.01.2014 to the OP which was received back with the remarks “refused”. Therefore, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for recovery of Rs. 20,900/- as the value of the Mobile Phone Set Samsung in question, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.3,300/-  towards  legal notice fee.   

OP has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.08.2014 passed by our predecessors.

The Complainant has filed his own affidavit alongwith written arguments.

We have heard the counsel for the Complainant and have also very carefully gone through the record.

The copy of the consignment booking No. V14301746 has been marked as exhibit C1/2-3.  The same does not bear the signature of the consignee nor the signature of the courier. It also does not contain the address of the Courier agency.  Therefore, how can it be pleaded that the Complainant had booked any such packet from the office of the OP stated to be situated at 90/60, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.  Moreover, the affidavit of the consignee to whom the consignment in question had been sent  has not been filed on the record  which could have  easily proved whether the  consignment had  been infact received by the consignee or not.

The Complainant has also not arrayed the Insurance Company- DTDC as a party. Therefore, the complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no case of deficiency in service has been proved beyond doubt against the OP.   

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.   

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 01.06.17.