Date of filing :- 07/05/2014.
Date of Order :-14/10/2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 08 of 2014
Pratyush Kumar Nanda, son of Anam Chandra Nanda, resident of Ward No.16, Gandhinagar, Canal Colony, Bargarh, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-V e r s u s -
The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Bargarh, At/Po. Bargarh, Ps/Tahssil/Dist. Bargarh.
The Superintendent of Postal Department, Office of Postal Superintendent, Head Post Office, Bargarh, At/Po, Bargarh Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri S.K.Naik, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Themselves.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Member (w), I/C President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 14/10/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member(w), I/C President .
Fact of case :-
Present Complainant sent one parcel containing Mobile handset (Zen) along with its charger and earphone accessory to SCO 35, Ist floor HS 11 DC Commercial Complex Kunduli Sonepat, Hariyana on Dt.06/07/2013 through registered parcel services of the Opposite Parties vide parcel No. E-RO. 502042934IN which was purchased from Tarash Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kundali Sonipat, Hariyana vide retain invoice No. TARA 32011 Dt.20/06/2013. Later Complainant discovered that the consignment was not been delivered and the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not redressed the grievances of the Complainant sustained pecuniary and mental sufferings which he seeks to be compensated and prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties for payment of Rs.1,999/-(Rupees one thousand nine hundred ninety nine)only towards the value of the Mobile Set and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for the sufferings and deficiency of service.
Complainant to establish then case and cause of the complaint files the following and relies an them.
Xerox of computer generated invoice of the purchase.
One xerox copy of Postal receipt.
Copy of letter to Opposite Parties for delivery of the consignment in issue Dt.07/08/2013.
Complaint been admitted for adjudication notice to the Opposite Parties issued and duely served.
Opposite Parties appeared Dt.24/07/2014 through duely authorized personalize and Opposite Party No.2(two) filed their detailed written version an the allegations denying all the charges levelled against them on Dt.29/09/2014 and filed the following documents in support of then contentions.
One statement (Annexure-I) computer generated about Complaint about non delivery of article in issue.
Reply letter Dt.16/09/2013 to the Complainant about his grievance been redressed.
One document from Sub-Post master Kundali Sonepat, about proof of delivery of the parcel.
Delivery slip of the registration Department duely stamped and signed.
Hearing was done on Dt.08/07/2015 in the presence of Opposite Parties an merit as for some time Complainant himself seemed avoiding appearance for hearing.
Heard the matter and submission of the Opposite Parties, perused the case record, petitions of both the parties and perused the documents filed by both the parties and after due consideration forum finds following.
The purchase of a Mobile Set, sending of the consignment in issue by Opposite Party are admitted facts.
The allegation of Complainant that his grievances were not redressed proved negative as the Opposite Parties have filed documents which shows registration of a complaint with a properly issued No and due details entered and after its being duely enquired and closed even the Complainant was informed by the Opposite Parties and their contention is proved by documents filed by the Opposite Parties (Annexure-R II).
The allegation of the Complainant that the consignment did not got delivered also disproved vide the revelation of facts that the sending address in the registration slip, address in the retail invoice filed by the Complainant and the delivery slip for Dt.12/07/2013 sent by Kundali, Post office found to be same and the delivery was made on 12/07/2013 duely to recipient by the Opposite Parties. The delivery slip is not only shows delivery to the address in this Complaint but there is delivery of parcels and consignments to other persons are also there.
Further the Opposite Parties have no knowledge about what is there in the parcel they only have taken the responsibility of the parcel handed to them for delivery for a particular addressee. It is further found that with out having a detailed information Complainant vide not demanding information about delivery is rather hasty on his part, and dragging Public Service authorities into such kind of unnecessary litigations is not proper. Complainant when got the letter about his grievances being closed from Opposite Party No.2(two) could have visited the sender office so as to get detailed information further information which was not done and filed this case against the Opposite Parties on bald grounds and made them otherwise irritated and workdays lost handling the litigation/ proceedings through their personal who could have been utilized for other productive work.
Under the circumstances the Opposite Parties are found not guiling of any deficiency of service and they have rendered their duly proper a fair.
Complainant is otherwise cautioned not to indulge in this kind of activity in future to be saved from legal actions.
O R D E R
Opposite Parties are exonerated from the allegation leveled against them and Complaint stands dismissed having no merit.
No cost.
Complaint dismissed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Smt.Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r(w),
I/C President. I agree,
( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash )
M e m b e r.
