Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President

1.       Sh.Sanjeet Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he sent a courier contained one very important document containing a cheque of Rs.2000/- and also letter in order to compliance of the District Consumer Forum Order through the Opposite Party to Local Address (Chheharta) at Amritsar on 16.6.2015 vide bill No. 454065360 through Opposite Party. The Opposite Party charged Rs.20/- from the complainant and assured the delivery within 48 hours on the above given address. But when the consignee (complainant) filed an execution application before this Forum for non compliance of the order of this Forum, then on the next day the enquiry was made by the complainant, but the Opposite Party failed to give any satisfactory reply about the non delivery of the said courier. The said courier was neither delivered at  its destination nor was returned to the complainant till the date of filing this complaint. The complainant and his clerk have made several personal visits before the Opposite Party office, but most of the time, no proper response was given to the complainant. As usual when the complainant called again it was answered by the courier guys/ reception in Opposite Party that he has no idea where the  courier in dispute is and another day, the guys of the Opposite Party have told that  the dak/ courier in dispute had already been delivered and  the same was received by Mr.Balbir Singh on 17.6.2015. Further more on the next day, when the complainant checked the status of the Tracking Status, the complainant was shocked to know that there is no service and said courier is still pending before the office of Opposite Party. Next day the complainant (Clerk) approached before the office of Opposite Party and the matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Party immediately, but at that time, the Opposite Party gave reply to the complainant that his courier was misplaced somewhere during transit and they are trying to locate the same. On account of non delivery of the courier in dispute within a stipulated period, the complainant suffered a lot as he had paid another cheque to the consignee and this act and omission on the part of Opposite Party, amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to return the courier in dispute to the complainant.

b)      The complainant has suffered a lot professional loss approximately Rs.60,000/- and mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/- at the hands of the Opposite Party for which the complainant deserve to be compensated amply and suitably in terms of money in the interest of justice.  

c)       To refund the cost of courier service of Rs.20/-.

d)      To direct the Opposite Party to pay litigation costs amounting to Rs.3500/- in addition to the above amounts.  

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and the present complaint is an abuse of process of law. The complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed by invoking section 26 of the Act; that there is no deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party. The courier sent by the complainant was duly delivered by the Opposite Party well within time and the allegations levelled in the present complaint is absolutely imaginatory and the complaint is filed on false facts by the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that the courier sent by the complainant was duly delivered at its destination and to the rightful person. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the copy of run sheet Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh.A.S.Bajwa, Branch Manager Ex.OP2, additional affidavit of Sh.A.S.Bajwa, Manger Ex.OP3 and  closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The only dispute inter se parties has been as to whether the courier sent by the complainant on 16.6.2015 containing  a cheque of Rs.2000/- alongwith a letter vide bill No. 454065360 through Opposite Party was delivered to the addressee or not? It is the stand of the Opposite Party that the parcel sent vide courier was received by Manjit Kaur wife of addressee Ravinder Singh. In order to prove the said fact, Opposite Party examined Sh.A.S.Bawa, Manger, who has filed his affidavit Ex.OP3 to the effect that he personally delivered the courier packet booked vide docket No. 454065360 dated 16.6.2015 on 18.6.2015 at around 10 AM to the wife of the consignee Ravinder Singh residing in the area of Shaheed Nagar, Near Chheharta Area, Amritsar, as the consignee was not available at the home at that time. In token of the delivery of the said packet, he got the signatures of the receiver of the courier article on the delivery run sheet, copy whereof is Ex.OP2 dated 18.6.2015. He also mentioned the mobile number on the said delivery run sheet alongwith her signature as  acknowledgement of receiving the said courier packet. The complainant on the other hand has tried to find fault that Manjit Kaur is not the wife of Ravinder Singh, rather she was the mother of Ravinder Singh. It is also disputed that no mobile number of said Manjit Kaur exists on the delivery run sheet, copy whereof Ex.OP1 on record. But however, for the reasons best known to the complainant, said Manjit Kaur was not produced before the Forum as witness to deny the factum of receiving the courier packet from A.S.Bajwa, Manager, Trackon Courier Private Limited on 18.6.2015. In such a situation, the fact that the courier in dispute has already been delivered to adult member of the family of Ravinder Singh addressee, as it is not denied that said Manjit Kaur was residing  in the house in dispute at the relevant time. Once it is proved that the courier packet in dispute has been received from Trackon Courier Private Limited, by one of adult members of the family of consignee, the onus on the Opposite Party for proving the delivery of the courier consignment stands discharged. In such a situation, the instant complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the court and the complaint deserves outright dismissal. Consequently, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum