Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/359/2015

Priyanka S Porwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Blue Dart Courier Services - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Dec 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.359/2015

 

                     Date of filing: 21/07/2015

 

                                                                  Date of disposal: /12/2016

P R E S E N T :-

 

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT       -

Priyanka Suresh Porwal, Polit No.137, Shanti Nagar, Tilakawadi, Belgaum - 590006.                             (In-person)

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY   -

The Manager, Blue Dart Courier Services, 2065 Mujawar Arcade, Neharu Nagar, Belgaum – 10.                     (Rep. by Sri.S.V.Ganachari, Adv.)

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for value of Items missing and Rs.7,000/- towards Compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses.

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

          It is case of the complainant is that, my friend who was send a parcel holding cosmetics through courier from Dubai city Dhoba which was very precious goods and the parcel was holding as follows;  

1. Three numbers of toiletry soaps.
2. Six eyeliners.
3. One lipstick.

the complainant contended that, when the parcel was opened, she found that, two eyeliners and one lipstick was missing then, she realized that, our parcel was tampered, the seal was as it is and the other side of the same plastic bag was cut and pasted with a blue gum tape. It is further case of the complainant that, the plastic bag name as sky com local touch 7 global reach, when observed a sticker pasted on the tampered side which is mentioning blue dart with AWB #33334402441/ BOM/ 276091/ Sky.  Since, the complainant having knowledge regarding blue dart as it is well known courier service in India, further I found blue dart phone number Mumbai and immediately contacted on 22.06.2015 and registered a complaint and OP gave me a registration number for my complaint i.e. 410240 and OP assured that, they will telephone me.

 

          It is further case of the complainant is that, on 26.06.2015 again I called them to the OP they have not responded. So, I have issued registered letter on 27.06.2015 to the OP and the same was duly served to the OP. After on 30.06.2015 the complainant has received call from the OP that, he would get back the missing articles. But till today they have not responded. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

         

3.      After issue of notice to the OP, the OP has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is not within the knowledge of the OP that, the parcel sent from Dubai city Doha the Cosmetic articles mentioned at Serial No.1 to 3 are incorrect and the complainant could realize that, the parcel was tampered, seal was broken, the plastic bag was cut and pasted with blue gum is denied. The statement of the complainant itself is contradictory to her contentions.  

 

          It is further case of the OP that, the OP investigated the matter and that, as there was no complaint regarding tampering of article. The complained is closed and therefore, the OP have informed the complainant that, nothing of the sort of allegation made by the complainant has taken place with the OP.

 

          It is further also case of the OP that, the complainant has issued a registered letter to the OP at Belgaum address dtd:27.06.2015 is admitted. The OP submits that, the representatives of the OP personally visited the complainant explained the terms and conditions of the services rendered by the OP and the complainant was convinced about her acceptance of the articles in that, there being any complaint of tampering of article no complaint could be entertained. The complainant on being explained was convinced and told that, it might be her misunderstanding and thereby request her to forget the episode with this the OP did not issue reply but, personally visited and convinced the complainant. The complainant has made false, allegation about the OP by giving 2 eye liner and one lipstick.  The complainant has not come with any concrete proof about the bill etc., and complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and in absence of proof the complaint of the complainant cannot be entertained and same is deserves to be dismissed with cost. 

 

4.      Both parties have filed their affidavit in support of their case, and on behalf of complainant has produced 03 documents, for sake of our convenience we have marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. On behalf of Opponent has not filed any documents. The Adv. for Complainant has filed his Written Argument and heard the argument of both sides.

 

          Now on the basis of these facts, the Points that would arise for our consideration are as fallows;

 

1.  Whether the complainant has proved that there   is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

 

 

2.  What order?

 

5.      Our findings to the Point No.1 in the Negative,  

         Point No.2 as per the final Order for the following: 

 

 

 

R E A S O N S

6.    POINT NO.1:  After perusing the both pleadings and evidence of parties and documents on record. It is the case of the complainant that, her friend has send parcel i.e. Soap + Cosmetics through Sky com courier and the same is sub delivered to the complainant by OP courier i.e. blue dart, the said parcel receipt which is marked as Ex.P-1 and Performa invoice is Ex.P-2 and legal notice to the blue dart office as Ex.P-3. After detailed going through the document,  the complainant has not made party to the Sky com local touch 7 global,  who had booked the said articles from Dubai, but the complainant has made only one party who is sub courier, who is delivered the said parcel to the complainant and even the complainant has not established what are the items her fried has send and what its costs and where he was purchased the same, neither the complainant produced the receipt of purchase nor lead the evidence to support the case of complainant.  But, merely producing the Sky com receipts and proforma invoice i.e. also contradict to each other in respect of weight i.e. 1Kg or 1.5 Kg, if it is 1 kg  why sky com company scratch on the receipt towards over the said receipt instead of 1 kg it has written as 1.5 kg.

 

          It is not the case of the complainant that, her friend has send parcel with 5 items as alleged by the complainant in the complaint and even he has not mention the cost of the items also. Therefore, in our consider view, the complainant has failed to substantiate the case as alleged by the complainant in complaint towards deficiency of service and mis-goods in transaction as alleged. It is the duty of the complainant when approach to the Forum she should have a support affidavit evidence to believe that, the OP has mis-handle and missing some of the items. Therefore, in our consider opinion that, there is no any deficiency on the part of the OP regarding the parcel items, then the question of deficiency could not arise and the OP is contended that, there is no any complaint of tampering of article no complaint could be entertained. Moreover the complainant has not established the relations between the parties as complaint is the consumer and OP is service provider. Admittedly a parcel is booked by complainant friend at Dubai and the same is send through sky com, thereafter the said parcel has send through OP blue dark company. Therefore, the complainant contention cannot be believed and it has no merit in the contention, further that, the opponent is not guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.

 

6.      Point No.2:- After careful consideration and our findings on the above points, we proceed to pass the following;

 

O R D E R

 

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by dismissed.

 

No order as to costs. 

 

             (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  17^th  day of December, 2016).

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.