Suresh Kumar filed a consumer case on 03 Jul 2023 against The Manager Door to Door Couriour etc. in the Kaithal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/213/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Jul 2023.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.213/2022.
Date of institution: 31.08.2022.
Date of decision:03.07.2023.
Suresh Kumar, age 37 years old, son of Sh. Chander Bhan Singh, resident of # 181/12, New Karnal Road, near Jat Stadium, Kaithal (Mobile No.9896199220).
…Complainant.
Versus
….OPs.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
CORAM: SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Renu Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.
OPs exparte.
ORDER
NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT
Suresh Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is a practicing advocate and he was engaged as a counsel by one person Rani Devi wife of Rampal resident of Village Badsikri Kalan, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal. Rani Devi is confined in District Jail, Kaithal in FIR No.224 dt. 06.08.2020 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC registered in P.S.Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal. The complainant as a counsel prepared bail application of Rani Devi in the above-said FIR. The hard copy of bail application alongwith some confidential documents in the form of parcel was handed over to OP on 01.07.2022 for delivery to Mohan Shoran, Chamber No.51, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide consignment No.T13300238 and paid Rs.60/- to OP. The case of complainant is that the said parcel was neither returned to complainant nor delivered to Mohan Shoran, Advocate, Chamber No.51, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The complainant visited several times to OPs but they did not respond. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs did not appear. OPs No.1,3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 28.11.2022 passed by this Commission and OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 29.03.2023 passed by this Commission.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is a practicing advocate and he was engaged as a counsel by one person Rani Devi wife of Rampal resident of Village Badsikri Kalan, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal. It is further argued tht Rani Devi is confined in District Jail, Kaithal in FIR No.224 dt. 06.08.2020 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC registered in P.S.Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal. It is further argued that the complainant as a counsel prepared bail application of Rani Devi in the above-said FIR. The hard copy of bail application alongwith some confidential documents in the form of parcel was handed over to OPs on 01.07.2022 for delivery to Mohan Shoran, Chamber No.51, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide consignment No.T13300238 and paid Rs.60/- to OP. It is further argued that the said parcel was neither returned to complainant nor delivered to Mohan Shoran, Advocate, Chamber No.51, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The complainant visited several times to OPs but they did not respond. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
The complainant has supported his versions by way of filing affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10. The complainant has testified all the contents in the affidavit so set out by him in the complaint. Whereas, OPs are also proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time. So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with cost. The OPs jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
7. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:03.07.2023.
(Neelam Kashyap)
President.
(Sunil Mohan Trikha), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.