RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.134 of 2007
First Flight Courier Limited through its
Manager, Personnel & Administration with
Its Regional Office at Sahara Trade Centre,
414-415, 2nd Floor, Faizabad Road,
Lucnow-16 ….Appellant.
Versus
Sri Ram Gupta s/o Shri Magan Nath,
R/o 842, Civil Lines, Godhan, Faizabad. …Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member.
Shri Deepesh Shukla for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Date 19.12.2016
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.10.2006, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Faizabad in complaint case No.61 of 2004, the appellant First Flight Courier Limited through its Manager (Personnel) has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the
(2)
respondent/complainant Shri Ram Gupta had sent a Marriage Invitation Card from Faizabad to Shri Sita Ram Gupta, r/o Village and Post: Masauli Bazar, Barabanki through the appellant First Flight Courier, Faizabad on 31.1.2004 and paid the demanded charges of Rs.21.60 vide receipt no.71346905 dated 31.1.2004. The card was returned with the report of 'no service' on 4.1.2004. It was contended that the card was dispatched on 31.1.2004 and the report of 'no service' dated 4.1.2004 was, therefore, misleading. The appellant took no pain or made no effort for the delivery of the letter. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service, complaint case no.61 of 2004 was preferred before the ld. Forum below.
The ld. counsel for the appellant/OP submitted that since the appellant does not provide courier service at remote areas, therefore, the Invitation Card was returned with the remark of 'no service'. Hence it committed no remiss.
The Forum below, after considering all facts, circumstances and evidence on record, held that there was no mistake in the address given by the respondent/ complainant. It was a complete in all respect. The appellant took the responsibility of timely delivery of the Invitation Card on receipt of payment of Rs.21.60 vide receipt no.71346905 dated 31.1.2004 but thereafter, returned the same with the remark of 'no service'. No reason was recorded in the Memorandum of consignment. Copy of the Memorandum is on record. The appellant knew at the time of acceptance of the Card for delivery
(3)
that it had to be delivered at Masauli Bazar, Barabanki. Considering all facts and circumstances, the ld. Forum below partly allowed the complaint on 6.10.2006 and directed the appellant to pay a meagre sum of Rs.5,000.00 as compensation within one month failing which it will be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. The ld. Forum below also awarded a sum of Rs.500.00 as cost of litigation.
Aggrieved by this judgment and order dated 6.10.2006, the instant appeal was filed on 17.1.2007. Certified copy was provided to the appellant on 6.10.2006 and therefore, it should have preferred the appeal by 6.11.2004. Thus, the appeal is barred by limitation for more than 70 days. An application for condonation of delay has been moved but no cogent reason has been assigned for the same. It was simply submitted that the delay was accidental and not intentional. Such an explanation is not sufficient in view of rulings laid down in Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Naresh Singh, I(2013) CPJ 407 (NC), U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandy, IV (2009) CPJ 217 (NC), Delhi Development Authority Vs. V.P. Narayanan, IV (2011) CPJ 155 (NC) and Anshul Agarwal Vs. NOIDA, IV(2011) CPJ 63 (SC).
As far as, the merit of the appeal is concerned, the appellant has admitted that the Consumer-Service Provider relationship between the parties. It also admitted that the Invitation Card was accepted for delivery on payment vide receipt no.71346905 dated 31.1.2004 and at that time it knew that the same was to be delivered at Masauli,
(4)
Barabanki. The address given in the envelop was correct and complete in all respect. The appellant has also admitted that the same was returned to the Sender on 4.2.2004 with the report of 'no service'. The reason for the 'no service' was not explained by the appellant and, therefore, returning the same with the report of 'no service' was prima-facie deficiency in service. There is no irregularity or illegality in the judgment and order, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless and barred by limitation, is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
ORDER
The appeal, being meritless and barred by limitation, is dismissed. The stay order granted on 19.1.2007 is vacated.
No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with the rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Govardhan Yadav)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.3
