(Smt. D. Nirmala, President (FAC))
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards compensation for non delivery of parcel in time, Rs.20,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony besides Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant posted two wedding cards in two covers in which one is Shadnagar and another is to Hyderabad on 8-5-2013 vide receipt No.7964448 and another receipt No.7964451 through courier. The complainant further submitted that the receipt No.7964448 the OP did not posted when the complainant approached the OP office Mahbubnagar for 15 days about status of the posted parcel. The OP on dt: 5-6-2013 return the cover to the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the receipt No.7964451 dt: 8-5-2013 Shadnagar the OP delivered the post on 18-5-2013 with a delay. The OP intentionally did not post the parcel to deceive the complainant and created loss to him. The complainant further submitted that due to the carelessness acts of the OP the complainant felt shy bow the head before his relatives. The said relatives have to break the alliance with the complainant. Such acts on part of the OP amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint is filed before this Forum for the above said reliefs.
3. The counter filed by the OP denying the allegation made in the complaint and stated that the complainant has sent two covers in which one is Shadnagar and another is to Hyderabad on 8-5-2013 and it is sent regular parcel service and it will take 5 to 6 days minimum if the correct address is mentioned on the cover. The OP further submitted that if any urgency is there or if required to send any cover on or before specific date the same shall be informed to the OP and for this service additional charges are collecting and sending the said cover to the addressees, the complainant intentionally suppressed the same to inform this O.P. and send to avoid payment of additional charges. This OP further submitted that the Hyderabad addressed addressee is not traced because of incomplete address mentioned on the cover which is placed on OPs service point. The same is informed to the complainant by this OP and returned the same to him. The Shadnagar addressed cover is also not correct address mentioned by the complainant. The same is informed to the complainant and obtained the correct address from the complainant and the same is served to the addressee. There is no negligence on part of the OP. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The points for determination now are:
- Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party
in rendering service to the complainant as alleged?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him?
(iii) To what effect?
5. The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant sent two wedding cards in a two different parcel through the OP.
6. Point Nos.1, 2 & 3:- It is the case of the complainant that he posted two wedding cards in a two different parcels with a different addresses on 8-5-2013. One is at Hyderabad and another one is at Shadnagar. The said parcels were not delivered to the addressee. The complainant further pleaded in his complaint that several time he visited the office of the OP and enquired the status of the said parcels vide receipt No.7964448 and another receipt No.7964451. The OP postponed matter on one pretext or the other. Finally on 5-6-2013 the OP returned the parcel vide receipt No.7964448 to the complainant. The other parcel was delivered lately on 18-5-2013. The complainant further urged that due to the carelessness acts of the OP the complainant bow his head before relatives and they break the alliance with the complainant. On other hand the counsel for the OP contended that in regular parcel service and it will take 5 to 6 days minimum if the correct address is mentioned on the cover. Further he pleaded that if any urgency is there on or before specific date the same shall be informed to the OP and for this service additional charges are collecting and sending the said cover to the addressee. The complainant suppressed the same to the OP and send it to avoid payment of additional charges. The parcel was returned on 5-6-2013 to the complainant due to incomplete address and the other parcel delivered on 18-5-2013 after obtaining the correct address from the complainant. There was no negligence on part of this OP. Hence this OP is not responsible for any loss. As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. On this aspect the complainant pleaded in his complaint that the OP is deliberately not delivered the parcel to cause loss to him. We are unable to agree the said contention because the complainant did not adduce any affidavit evidence or any documentary evidence to substantiate the pleading taken by him. In a Judgment reported in CPR 2013 (3) page 376 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “‘the District Forum cannot allow the complaint without filing affidavit evidence of the complainant”. The case on hand also the complaint did not choose to file his affidavit evidence. In the absence of the same the complainant is not entitled any relief sought for by him. Therefore we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. For the above said reasons principles laid down in the said citation the complainant failed to prove his case against the opposite party. Hence we are of the firm opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
