Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/8/2015

Sudha Kansal W/o Narinder Kansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager On Dot Courier And Cargo Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.L.Arya

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 08  of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 06.01.2015

                                                                                    Date of Decision:01.09.2016

Sudha Kansal aged about 63 years wife of late Shri Narinder Kansal, resident of House No. 1275, 4 Gali, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..Complainant

         Versus

1. The Manager On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd. Opp. Ram Leela Bhawan, Jagadhri.
2. On Dot Courier & Cargo Ltd. Regd. Office New Delhi.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..Respondents.

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

            SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

 

Present: Sh. Rohit Arya, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Respondents already ex-parte.

 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had handed over a consignment of Lehnga weighing approximately 2 Kg. for delivering to her son-in-law Sh. Koustub Goyal C/o M/s B.S.Ranbir & Co. Shivangi Bhawan Opposite Green Arcade Cottage Chimbalhaar Palampur (H.P.) and the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) had issued a receipt bearing No. 361724792 dated 11.10.2013 and had charged Rs. 170/- from the complainant for safe delivery of the costly Lehanga to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. However, the said courier containing lehanga had not reached to the destination. This act of the OPs have rendered highly defective and deficient services and liable to pay the value of Lehanga as well as compensation and harassment. Complainant requested the OPs through legal notice, either to deliver the aforesaid consignment to the complainant or to make the payment of the aforesaid Lehanga but the OPs have totally failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. The daughter of the complainant for whom the Lehanga was sent had badly suffered due to non-delivery of the same. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to pay the cost of aforesaid Lehanga amounting to Rs. 25,000/- and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Notice was sent to the OPs through registered post but none appeared despite service, hence, the OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.03.2015.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, so, the evidence of the complainant was closed by even date i.e. 01.09.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant tendered courier receipt in support of her case.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the complaint filed by the complainant minutely and very carefully.

6.                     From the perusal of the file, it is clearly evident that the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to prove her version mentioned in the complaint. Even no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant in support of her complaint. Further the complainant has also failed to file any affidavit on behalf of her son in law Sh. Koustub Goyal in whose name the courier in question was sent. Moreover, as per the version of the complainant herself she sent the courier in question on 11.10.2013 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 06.01.2015 i.e. after a period of more than 1 ¼ years. Hence, without any documentary evidence, we are unable to hold that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

7.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.01.09.2016.           

                                                                                    ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

                                                                       

                                                                                    (  S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                     MEMBER