BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 243 of 2016                                                                         

                                                              Date of Institution         :    16.9.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    30.10.2017.

Gurdarshan Singh s/o Jagdish Singh, aged about 25 years, resident of Veer Singh Wali Gali, Gurdwara Basti, Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises, Near Punjab Bus Stand, Opposite Mangat Motors, Mandi Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor. (Franchise office of D.T.D.C. courier Express Limited). 

2. DTDC Express Limited Regional Office, B-101, Phase-1, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110028 through its Managing Director.

3. Symphony Mobile, 1^st a cross, opp. To DARE, Kaggadasapura, Main Road, CV Raman Nagar, City Bangalore, through its Proprietor State Karnataka- 560093.                                                                 

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

      SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

                 SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:          Sh. Puneet Narang,  Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Suresh Malik, Advocate alongwith Sh. Sandeep Khattar, Adv.                      

for opposite parties No.1 & 2.

                        Opposite party no.3 given up.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant has purchased 2 TB WD Elements Portable External Hard Drive (Black) for Rs.6695/- from the website of

2.                On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that in view of the arbitration clause, the present complaint is not maintainable and that complainant has not made claim within time and that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that in case the parcel is not insured by the consigner, as per the policy of the company, then the liability of the company is restricted to Rs.100/- only. The complainant has not got the goods insured and therefore, the complainant cannot shift the burden of his lapse upon the ops. On merits, while denying the contents of the complaint, it is submitted that complainant in proof of his averments that he had sent the hard drive to Symphony Mobiles through op no.1 has not attached any documents and in the absence of the same it cannot be said that he actually sent the Hard Drive through op no.1 or that op no.1 has not delivered the same.

3.                Opposite party no.3 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of e-mail Ex.C1 to Ex.C4, certificate Ex.C5 and courier receipt Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and authority letter Ex.R2.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties with the averments that complainant had purchased 2 TB WD Elements Portable External Hard Drive (Black) for Rs.6695/- from the website of

7.                On the other hand, there is specific plea of the ops no.1 and 2 that courier was duly delivered to op no.3 through their employee Arun Kumar as per instructions of the complainant and due certificate Ex.C5 was issued to the complainant and complainant has filed the present complaint against ops no.1 and 2 on wrong facts.

8.                The perusal of the record reveal that during pendency of the present complaint, learned counsel for complainant suffered a statement on 24.5.2017 by which he had given up op no.3. The record further reveal that complainant did not implead paytm as a party though same was a necessary party to be impleaded as complainant had purchased the Hard Drive from paytm and moreover, complainant continued to correspond with paytm from time to time before filing of the present complaint. 

9.                It was the legal obligation of the complainant to discharge his onus to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence against ops no.1 and 2 that the Hard Drive which was sent by him through courier of ops no.1 and 2 was not delivered to op no.3 but, however, the affidavit of the complainant namely Gurdarshan Singh reveal that he has not uttered a single word that his Hard Drive has not been delivered to op no.3 rather in para no.3 he has specifically deposed that op no.3 stated that said mobile has not been received by him as no person named Arun is employed in their office. So, it is proved by complainant himself that complainant himself is not sure whether he sent Hard Drive or Mobile by way of courier to op no.3 or not. Further more, the complainant has not summoned the record of op no.3 qua the employment of said Arun Kumar rather he gave up op no.3 as party due to reason best known to him. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs in order to prove the allegations leveled by him in his complaint. Once, it is proved on record that complainant himself has failed to lead the cogent evidence in order to prove his case, he does not deserve for the relief claimed for against ops no.1 and 2. Since, the complainant has not led any cogent and reliable evidence against ops no.1 and 2, as such the complaint of the complainant appears to be devoid of any merit.

10.              In view of the above, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                                       President,

Dated:30.10.2017.                          Member                  Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.