JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging deficiency in service and negligent in not delivering the Gift Parcel. Hence prays for the amount of the gift of Rs.259/- along with courier charges of Rs.60/- and Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical agony and deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and miscellaneous expenses.

             Brief averments of the Complaint are;

            2.  That the complainant on dated; 30.04.2015 had booked a gift parcel for his wife’s sisters daughters first birthday which was on 02.05.2015 in the OP-Courier service. The cost of the doll was of
Rs.259/-. The said gift parcel was booked in the given below address: 

P.Shyamsundar S/o Peerappa Balluru,

Rtd., Deputy Thasildar,

Mallamma Nagar, Mudhol,

Dist: Bagalkot.

 The said gift parcel was booked on 30.04.2015. The Receipt number of the booking is B19263972. The courier charges of Rs.60/- was paid.

            3.         The complainant further alleged that OP till today has not delivered a gift parcel. When the complainant approached the OP and enquired about the parcel, the OP did not respond to him properly. The complainant alleged that the said gift parcel was sent to the complainant wife’s sister daughter on her first birthday, but the relatives of the complainants wife were in the knowledge that the complainant’s wife has not sent any gift and they are telling lies to them that they have sent the parcel and for this the relatives are suspecting/treating them in a very suspicious manner. Due to this reason, the complainant is mentally depressed and the OP has committed deficiency in service and negligent in not sending the gift parcel.

            4.         The complainant further alleged that the complainant later on went to the courier office and enquired about the parcel then they informed orally that no gift parcel has been dispatched from Koppal. The OP has taken the requisite fee for the gift parcel and the complainant has booked the gift parcel to the correct address and the OP has not delivered the said gift parcel to the address mentioned and has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

            5.         The complainant further alleged that the complainant had issued a legal notice through their counsel on 18.06.2015 and the said notice is served on him. Even after service of notice, the OP did not give any reply for it. Hence, prays for the gift amount of Rs.259/- and the courier charges of Rs.60/- is to be paid along with Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and physical and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and miscellaneous charges.

            6.         This Forum after admitting the complaint, the notice was issued to the OP and the notice was served upon him. The OP appeared before the Forum along with their counsel and filed Vakalath and Written Version to the main petition.

            7.         The objections of the OP are as under:

            That the OP denied the fact of the complainant in toto. The complainant has created lock and bull story to file this complaint for this reason the OP does not agree to the allegations as alleged. 

            8.         The OP further submitted that it is true that as per the complaint, that on 30.04.2015 the complainant had come to the office of the OP and gave a cover to be sent on the given address. The OP as per the rules of their office took the cover and gave the receipt for it after paying the courier charges and made arrangements for sending the courier to the address given and it is delivered to the address. The OP further alleged that it is not known to us that the complainant has kept a doll in it, because when the said cover was given to us it was fully sealed by the complainant. So the contents of the complainant are false.

            9.         The OP further submitted that the allegation made by the complainant is that his wives sisters’ daughter birthday was there and for this, he had sent a gift parcel through courier and the said parcel has not been delivered to the above said address are false. The OP submitted that it is true that the cover was sent through our courier service only and the said cover is delivered to the above address given and the said delivered report documents is submitted before the Hon’ble Forum.

            10.       The OP further submitted that when the complainant had come to the office of the OP, then we informed him that the said courier was delivered on 02.05.2015 to the address given by the complainant. Inspite of giving them details about the courier delivered, the complainant has filed this false complaint without any reasons against the OP. The OP also submitted that the complainant had warned OP that he will see that his courier service will be closed and his licences would be cancelled. The OP further submitted that in the same manners, reply notice was given to the complainant to this notice and the same is produced before the Hon’ble Forum. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 

11.       On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points that arise for our consideration are:

POINTS

1.  Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service in not delivering the gift parcel to the address given?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought for?

3. What order?

12.        To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW-1 and has got marked documents as per EX A-1 to EX A-4 and closed their side evidence. The OP examined himself as RW-1 and got marked documents as per EX B-1 and EX B-2 and closed their side evidence.

    13.              Heard the arguments of both counsel and perused the records.

    14.     Our findings on the above points are as under;

Point No. 1 :  In Affirmative

Point No. 2 :  In Affirmative

Point No. 3:   As per final Order for the following.

REASONS

15.  POINT No. 1and 2:  As these points are interconnected each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence documents and arguments.

            16.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record. There is no dispute regarding that a parcel/cover has been sent through their courier service only. It is also admitted by the complainant and OP a gift parcel was sent and after paying the charges the OP has taken into their custody and made arrangements to send it.

            17.       To prove the case of the complainant, PW-1 has reiterated the complainant’s averments in his examination in Chief and in support of his case he has produced the documents pertains to the bill where he had purchased the doll which is marked as EX A-1.  EX. A-1 reveals that the complainant has purchased a music doll in Pooja Fancy and Gift Centre on 30.04.2015 and the cost is of Rs.259/-. EX A-2 is the DTDC Courier receipt where the complainant has booked for a gift parcel and Rs.60/- is paid on it on 30.04.2015. PW-1 has averred and deposed that the gift parcel was booked in the OP office and the same is accepted by the OP after paying the parcel charges. The complainant on 18.06.2015 has issued a legal notice to the OP contention that the parcel has not delivered and the same is marked as EX-A3 and EX A4 is the receipt of the postal department which has been sent to the OP.

            18.       The RW-1/OP has deposed as per their specific defence setup in their Written Statement that they have delivered the said cover to the address given by the complainant. To substantiate the same, the OP has produced the copy of courier served of receipt No.B19263972 and the same has been marked as EX B-2. Therefore, on perusal of the EX B-2 it is crystal clear that the said bill is online bill. In this, it clearly shows that the said parcel is delivered in Bagalkot and it is delivered on May 07 2015 at 12;00 hrs., whereas the OP in his Written Version has averred and deposed in his affidavit that on 02.05.2015 only the parcel has been delivered. In the interrogatories of RW-1 he has deposed that an online bill is submitted. But the bill does not reveal any signature of the address who has taken the parcel. Believing his version with respect to the delivery confirmation in the aforesaid courier is not justifiable one because when a courier is given to the address then, they take the signature of that particular person who has taken it and the same copy will be sent back to the concerned office. Here the OP instead of producing the signed copy at the delivered time, he has produced the online copy, where it is mentioned as delivered and sign looking to the EX B-2 and its contents with RW-1 might have deposed falsely that the gift parcel is delivered. Hence, his version is not believable with respect of specific defence setup by the OP. But to substantiate the said gift parcel has been delivered, there is no cogent documents have been produced by the said OP, the question of considering that the parcel has been delivered as deposed by RW-1 in his Chief is not believable. PW-1 has denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the OP that the parcel has been delivered.

            19.       The RW-1 further deposed that a reply notice was sent to the complainant and the same is produced before the Forum which has been marked as EX B-1. On the perusal of the EX B-1 the reply notice is sent on 26.08.2015 after filing the complaint. It is also mentioned in the reply notice that the said parcel was delivered on 07.05.2015 at 12.00 PM. Where has he has deposed in the Written Version and in his affidavit that on 02.05.2015, it has been delivered. This itself clearly goes to show that the said OP was not aware whether it has been delivered or not, believing his version is not justifiable one.

            20.       Therefore, the contention which has been taken by the OP is vague and therefore the said defence setup by the OP is not justifiable one.

            21.       The complainant has relied the citation reported in 12 (2) CPC Page 521, On-Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd., V/s Mr. Abhineet Gulati, Advocate, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that:

            “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (g) – Courier service – Non delivery of parcel – Parcel containing valuable articles sent through courier service but it was not delivered to addressee – Petitioner/OP through trial to prove that parcel was delivered to respondent but no cogent evidence was brought on record – Burden lies upon petitioner to pay delivery of parcel but he failed to do so – Order of Fora below directing petitioner to pay Rs.73,970 as price of goods upheld – Revision dismissed.”

            The counsel for the complainant has also relied the citation reported in II (2012) CPJ 167 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, AIR STAR EXPRESS COURIER V/S INDER MEDICAL STORE & ANR. held that:

            “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (b) – Courier – made – Recovery of Rs.26,137 sought along with compensation and cots – Alleged deficiency in service – District Forum dismissed complaint – State revision – Fixation of seal without signatures of person who received parcel is not sufficient to prove that parcel had been delivered by petitioner to consignee – Petitioner firm is a “Courier service providing agency” which obtains the couriers and parcels from customers and delivers them to specified address and charges specific amount of money for services provided by it – If courier or parcel is not delivered at given address or if it reaches in damaged condition then act of petitioner certainly amounts to deficiency in service – Plea taken by petitioner that liability was limited to Rs.100 only cannot be accepted – Impugned order upheld.

            Result: Revision Petition dismissed.”

Therefore, in the light of principle laid down by this lordship in the aforesaid citation more specifically with respect to courier service. It is crystal clear that the courier service provider must be very sincere while dealing with consignments.

            22.       Courier service providing agency which obtains the courier and parcels from customer and delivers them to specific address and charges specific amount for services provided by it. If the courier or parcel is not delivered on given address then it certainly amounts to deficiency in service.

            23.       On the contrary, as per the oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence, the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not delivering the gift parcel. Hence, in the light of above observations, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, in the light of above observations, we constrained to hold Points No.1 and 2 in affirmative.

24.  POINT No. 3 :- In view of above discussion and findings, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is here by partly allowed.

2. OP is directed to pay the price of the gift of Rs.259/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty nine) along with courier charges of Rs.60/- and Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) for deficiency in service and mental agony along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) for litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which 12% p.a. interest will be charged from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization.

3. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Fora on 15^th day of March, 2016.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant

List of Documents Exhibited for the OP

Witnesses examined for the OP