Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 361
Instituted on : 26.07.2019
Decided on : 27.02.2024
M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises Shop No.675, Opp. Jatcollege, Rohtak through its Proprietor Balvinder Singh s/o Sh. Sajjan Singh
……..Complainant
Vs.
- Shree Salasar Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office 8-9 ShyamBhawan, 3611 N.S Marg Darya Ganj, New Delhi-100002 through its Manager.
- Shree Salasar Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Shop No 1 Near AppuGhar, Rohtak through its Manager
………..Opposite parties/respondents
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Vikram Singh Ohlan, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite partiesexparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant is dealing in wholesale business of mobile phone accessories. The
complainant used to send items through courier from time to time. The complainant booked a parcel of mobile phone accessories through respondents courier service for Gurgaon vide docket No.0003435 weight 10 kg. containingthe items worth Rs.49,825/- through respondent No. 2 and respondent No.2 issued a receipt in this regard and officials of respondent No.2 assured that the parcel will be delivered at address in time safely. But even after passing a sufficient long period the said parcel was not delivered by opposite parties on its address, then the complainant contacted the opposite parties and enquired the matter, but respondent’s officials failed to provide proper details of parcel to the complainant. The complainant gave in writing to respondent No.2 to trace out hisparcel but the opposite parties failed to trace out the parcel of the complainant. Due to the non-delivery of parcel of the complainant, he has suffered a great financial loss. Due to the above-said illegal act and conduct of respondents the complainant has suffered a great mental tension & harassmentand the act of opposite parties for non-delivery of parcel is quite deficiency in service on their part. Complainant served a legal notice dated 10/6/2019 to the respondents, but the respondents did not pay any heed and even did not reply the legal notice and finally refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant on 1/7/2019. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.49825/- as compensation on account of misplacing the mobile parts, to pay Rs.200000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant never asked the respondents about the said courier nor any complaint was put up before the respondents. It is further submitted that if courier of the complainant would have been lost, he might would have been annexed the status report of the said docket. It is submitted that no mental agony or loss has been caused to the complainant due to the any act of the respondents. If any loss has been caused to the complainant, then he shall be put to the strict proof of it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, at the time of evidence, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.09.2022 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on 25.08.2021. On the other hand, opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.09.2022 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case respondents appeared and filed their written statement on dated 16.04.2021 and thereafter they did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.09.2022 of this Commission. We have minutely perused the documents filed by the complainant and written statement filed by the opposite parties. As per the complainant he booked a courier for Gurugram vide docket no.0003435 having weight 10kg.containingthe items wroth Rs.49825/- through respondent no.2 and the consignment was not delivered by the respondent no.2 to the addressee. So the present complaint has been filed by the complainant. We have minutely perused the docket no.0003435 placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C6. In this docket, shipper name is mentioned as Jai Mata and consignee name as G.MobileGurugram and the weight has been mentioned as 10 kg. Other particulars in the docket are blank. The amount has not been mentioned, on which date the parcel was booked and the date of delivery etc. are also not mentioned. So it cannot be believed that the same is a genuine receipt. Moreoveras per this receipt, any amount has not been paid for obtaining the services from the respondent officials. Hence no cause of action has arisen to file the present case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
