Sujata Jhalani,

Flat no. 302, 3^rd floor,

Radha Krishna Apartment,

near Hans Khali Pul,

opposite- Amar Jyoti Apartment,

Baultolla, Howrah – 711109.-------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

M/s. Professional Couriers,

Park Plaza, Room No. 20,

71, Park Street,

Kolkata – 7000016,

represented by its Manager.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Sujata Jhalani,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation towards the non-delivery of a consignment along with litigation cost and other orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that M/S. ICICI Bank sent documents in the name of

the complainant through O.P. from Mumbai on 07-02-2013. But O.P. being the service provider, returned that consignment being note no. VPL 611997140 to M/S ICICI Bank with the endorsement ‘No such person at the given address’. But it is  claimed by the complainant that she had been residing at the given address being flat no. 302, 3^rd floor, Radhakrishna Apartment, near Hans Khali Pul opposite Amarjyoti  Apartment, Baultolla, Howrah – 711109.  And she came to know the fact when she approached and made query about the consignment. The Bank has sent scanned copy of the POD given by O.P. to the Bank vide Annexure dated 29-01-2013. It is further alleged by the complainant that at the said address, she and her family members are receiving letter from private courier as well as India Post. Complainant wrote a grievance letter to the O.P. on 22-03-2013 stating therein that O.P. should let her know whether there is any other undelivered letter in her name lying with them or they have already returned to the sender. And alleging deficiency in service, complainant has filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.                  Notice was served. But none appears and no written version has been filed by

the O.P. Accordingly, the  case  was heard ex parte.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            Complainant has filed

affidavit in support of her allegation. We have seen the annexures which show that the complainant and her family members are receiving letters at the given address.  And the address of the complainant is also very clear to understand and to find out. And when complainant wrote a letter on 22-03-2013 and sent it on 24-03-2013, O.P. remained silent without giving any reply, this is nothing but negligence on the part of the O.P. Complainant, being the beneficiary of M/S. ICICI Bank who took the service of the O.P., is a consumer of the O.P. too. O.P. is running a business which is totally based on consumer satisfaction and O.P. should have been more careful. After receiving the summon of this Forum, O.P. did not even care to appear before this  Forum and to file any written version. If so, it is crystal clear that O.P. has nothing to put forward in its favour. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  94  of 2013 ( HDF 94  of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, i.d., the entire amount of  Rs. 2,500/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )               

 Member,                                     Member,                                

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.