DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.594 of 14-12-2011
Decided on 30-03-2012
Navneet Kaur, aged about 25 years, daughter of Shri Balbir Singh Brar son of Shri Jang
Singh, Resident of House No.82, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Shree Balaji Courier, World Wide Express, Railway Road, Bathinda, through its
Proprietor/Manager.
D.H.L. Express (I) Pvt. Ltd., 47-48, G-5, Pragati House, Near Satyam Cine Complex,
Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Manpreet Singh, counsel for opposite party No.1
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has applied for permanent resident-ship of Canada about one and half year back with the Canada Govt. The Canada Embassy had asked her to submit her documents within a week. As the complainant is a resident of Bathinda as such she had to send her documents to the Canada Embassy. She along with her father contacted the opposite party No.1 which deals in the business of worldwide courier service having their tie-up with the opposite party No.2. The complainant and her father had apprised the opposite party No.1 that her documents to the destination i.e. Canada should be reached within 5-6 days. On the assurance of the opposite party No.1, the complainant had sent her documents through the courier service of the opposite parties on 29.11.2011, the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1,250/- for the same vide receipt No.6958/012345 dated 29.11.2011. The complainant has alleged that she inquired about the delivery of the documents from the consignee who conveyed her that the documents are not delivered to the consignee. Even after 12-13 days, the said documents were not delivered to the consignee. On 08.12.2011, the complainant along with her father went to the opposite party No.1 and inquired about the delivery of the documents. The opposite part No.1 inquired about the same from the opposite party No.2 and they told that the same would be delivered to the consignee on 09.12.2011 but as per assurance and promise of the opposite parties, the same were not delivered to the consignee within time rather the same was delivered to the consignee on 12.12.2011 evening. The complainant has further alleged that due to late delivery of the documents, the complainant has suffered great loss, she has to pay 1000 dollars, her permanent resident-ship has also been delayed and her case for permanent resident-ship has not been completed and postponed as there are holidays of Xmas. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation and any other alternative relief.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum, has filed its written statement and admitted that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for booking a parcel to be delivered at Canada on 29.11.2011. The opposite party No.1 has denied that it ever assured the complainant that the opposite party will get the said consignment delivered to the consignee within a period of 5-6 days rather the opposite party No.1 had informed her that the entire business of the opposite parties is through networking and that the parcel booked by her, will be sent by the opposite party No.1 to Ludhiana within 24 hours and further the same will be delivered by XPLS Courier, Ludhiana to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 will further send the same to the consignee end. The opposite party No.1 delivered the said parcel at XPLS Courier, Ludhiana on the same day i.e. on 29.11.2011 itself against proper receipt and thereafter, the same was delivered at New Delhi and from New Delhi, the same was sent to the consignee end at Canada as such there is no delay on the part of the opposite party No.1. If any delay has occurred, the same is on the part of the opposite party No.2 for which the opposite party No.1 is not responsible. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the above said parcel has already been delivered to the consignee on 12.12.2011. The opposite party No.1 has further denied that the complainant has to pay 1000 dollars to the Canadian Embassy due to any delay in delivery of parcel to the Canadian Embassy as she has not produced any receipt regarding the payment of any such amount of 1000 dollars. Further, as admitted by the complainant, the parcel was delivered at the consignee end on 12.12.2011 and the Xmas holidays started w.e.f. 25.12.2011.
3. The opposite party No.2 despite service of summons/notice, has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2.
4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The contention of the complainant is that she has to submit her documents with Canada Government as she had applied for Permanent Resident-ship of Canada about 1-½ year back as such she sent her documents to Canadian Embassy. For this, she and her father contacted the opposite party No.1 having its tie-up with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 apprised the complainant that her documents will reach at destination within 5-6 days. On the assurance of the opposite party No.1, the complainant sent her documents through opposite party No.1 on 29.11.2011 and the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1,250/- vide receipt No.6958/012345 dated 29.11.2011. Thereafter, when she inquired about the delivery of her documents from the consignee, she came to know that the documents were not delivered to the consignee, even after 12-13 days, the same were not delivered. On 08.12.2011, she along with her father visited the opposite party No.1 to inquire about the delivery of the documents where she was told that the same would be delivered to the consignee on 09.12.2011 but the documents were delivered to the consignee on 12.12.2011. Due to late delivery of those documents, she had suffered a loss as such she has to pay 1000 dollars, her Permanent Resident-ship has also been delayed and her case for Permanent Resident-ship has not been completed.
7. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has submitted that the complainant had booked a parcel which was to be delivered at Canada on 29.11.2011. The opposite party No.1 never assured her that it will get the said consignment delivered to the consignee within 5-6 days rather the complainant was informed by the opposite party No.1 that the entire business of the opposite parties, is through networking and the parcel will be sent by the opposite party No.1 to Ludhiana within 24 hours and further the same would be delivered by XPLS Courier, Ludhiana to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 delivered the same at XPLS Courier, Ludhiana on the same day i.e. on 29.11.2011 itself against proper receipt and thereafter, the same was delivered at New Delhi and from New Delhi, the same was sent to the consignee at Canada, so there is no delay on the part of the opposite party No.1. The above said parcel delivered on 12.12.2011. Further, the complainant has not to pay 1000 dollars to the Canadian Embassy due to any delay in delivery of parcel to the Canadian Embassy as she has not produced any receipt regarding the payment of 1000 dollars. Moreover, the X-mas holidays started from 25.12.2011.
8. A perusal of evidence placed on file shows that the complainant had sent a parcel to Canada. She has booked the said parcel on 29.11.2011 which is to be delivered at Canada. No assurance was given by the opposite party No.1 that it will get the said consignment delivered to its destination within 5-6 days rather the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the entire business of the opposite parties is through networking and the parcel booked by her, will be sent by the opposite party No.1 to Ludhiana within 24 hours and further, the same would be delivered by XPLS Courier, Ludhiana to the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 will sent the same to the consignee. Only assurance was given by the opposite party No.1 to deliver the parcel at XPLS courier, Ludhiana and the opposite party No.1 delivered the same at XPLS Courier, Ludhiana on the same day against proper receipt. Thereafter, the same was delivered at New Delhi and from New Delhi, the same was sent to the consignee at Canada, there was no delay on the part of the opposite party No.1 in sending the parcel at XLPS Courier, Ludhiana. The parcel had already been delivered to the consignee on 12.12.2011 as admitted by the complainant herself.
9. The complainant has not placed on file any receipt that she has paid 1000 dollars extra due to non delivery of the documents. Moreover, there is no evidence placed on file that due to late delivery of documents, her Permanent Resident-ship has been delayed.
10. Thus, from the facts & circumstances and evidence placed on file shows that the contention of the complainant that her Permanent Resident-ship has been delayed and she has to pay 1000 dollars because of delay of documents but the documents have already been delivered on 12.12.2011 whereas according to her allegations, this was delayed due to Xmas holidays but these Xmas holidays started from 25.12.2011. Hence, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover, there was ample of time with the Canadian Embassy to process her case after 12.12.2011 but if there is any delay in Permanent Resident-ship or the complainant has to pay extra money that does not mean that it was due to non-delivery or late delivery of the documents to the Canadian Embassy. The courier was delivered to the destination on 12.12.2011 i.e. within 13 days from the date of booking. This time is considered adequate time for the delivery of overseas couriers.
11. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
30-03-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
