STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

M/s Rana Document Centre, Shop No.159, Village Burail, Sector 45-C, near Civil Dispensary, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Ms. Reeta Rani.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal, Resident of House No.2007/1, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Kumar Nikshep, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint of the complainant (now respondent) and directed the OP (now appellant) as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is allowed with direction to the OP to pay Rs.2500/- as lump sum compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and litigation costs within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order”.

2.                    The facts, in  brief,  are  that the complainant, booked a letter vide booking No.253947725 dated 04.08.2011, for Ludhiana, which was to reach before the day of Raksha Bandan celebration, on 13.08.2011. The said letter was not received by the addressee nor was the same delivered back to the complainant, despite the fact that mobile no. 9876462613, was mentioned on the same. It was stated that the OP, never bothered to trace the said letter. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.                    On notice of the complaint, the OP refused to accept the service of the same. Accordingly, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that refusal amounted to due service. None appeared, on behalf of the OP, as a result whereof, it (OP),  was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 09.09.2011.    

4.                    The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

5.                    After hearing the complainant in person and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/OP.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/OP, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is running a business of Cyber Café and work of Photostat in the name of M/s Rana Documentation Centre at Village Burail. He further submitted  that the appellant, used to book the courier letters/parcels for and on behalf of Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that after booking the letters/parcels, the appellant, on the same very evening, used to hand over the same to M/s Nayak Enterprises, Shop No.2068/2, Village Burail, Chandigarh, which is a franchisee/agent of M/s Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.  He further submitted that the appellant, thus, was only doing the booking work. He further submitted that, on receipt of the complaint, from the complainant, the appellant asked  M/s Nayak Enterprises, as to why, the letter was not delivered. He further submitted that M/s Nayak Enterprises, then returned the said letter to the appellant, and, when the complainant was asked to take the delivery thereof, he refused to obtain the same. He further submitted that since the address mentioned on the letter, was not complete, for that reason, it could not be delivered to the addressee. He further submitted that the complainant was having knowledge, that it was M/s Nayak Enterprises, which was the Courier Agency. He further submitted that the District Forum, did not take into consideration, these facts, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in allowing the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, against the appellant/OP, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, vide booking receipt Annexure C-1, bearing No.253947725 dated 04.08.2011, a letter was booked by the complainant, with the OP/appellant, which was addressed to one Madan Lal Aggarwal of Ludhiana. Admittedly, this letter was not received by Madan Lal, addressee, and even the same was not returned to the complainant. There was a privity of contract, between the complainant and the OP. If the OP used to book the courier letter/parcels, for and on behalf of M/s Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd., and was having any arrangement of handing over the same to M/s Nayak Enterprises, which was  allegedly a franchisee/agent of M/s Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd., the complainant could not suffer for their lapse. On account of non-receipt of letter by the addressee, before the day of Raksha Bandan, the complainant had to suffer mental, physical and emotional harassment. Even, the letter was not returned by the OP, to the complainant, undelivered, despite his request. These acts on the part of the OP, amounted to deficiency in rendering service. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding that the complainant was entitled to compensation of Rs.2,500/-, in lump sum. The amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum, is just and fair. It is neither unreasonable nor unjust nor unfair. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

11.         The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed at the preliminary stage with costs quantified at Rs.2,000/-,. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

November 22, 2011                                                      Sd/-

                                              [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg