Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/977/2019

Rikash Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/977/2019
Date of Institution	:	01/10/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/02/2021

 

Rikash Goel S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal, Plot No. 35, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Trackon Courier Pvt. Limited, through its Company Secretary/ Director/ Chairman, A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi -110028.

 

2.      Company Secretary/ Director/ Chairman, Trackon Courier Pvt. Limited, A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi -110028

 

3.      The Authorized Representative/ Manager, Trackon Courier Pvt. Limited, Plot No.120, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY:	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan the Complainant send two parcels (containing Rakhi & Rolli) for his close relatives through Opposite Parties and paid courier charges of Rs.40/- each on 09.08.2019 vide receipts Annexure C-1 & C-2. Although the said parcels, as per assurances given by the Opposite Parties were to delivered after one day from the date of booking, yet the same were never delivered or received by the consignee. In respect of the same, the Complainant lodged Complaints with the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, pleaded that the packets which were booked with the Opposite Parties, were delivered to addressee/consignee on 13.08.2019, against proper receipt, as is evident from Delivery Run Sheet (Annexure R-1). Thus, the packets were delivered prior to Raksha Bandhan which fell on 15.08.2019.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties.
7.         As per the duly sworn affidavit of the Complainant, both the parcels sent on 09.08.2019 after spending an amount of Rs.40/- each, they were never delivered to the Consignee. Hence, lot many Complaints were lodged by the Complainant (Annexure C-3 to C-6). But, as per the version of the Opposite Parties, if we peruse Annexure R-1 the parcels were delivered to the Consignee on 13.08.2019 before the Raksha Bandhan with proper receipt.
8.         It is important to note that after filing of reply by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has taken contradictory stand that one article was received, but not the other. Hence, in the absence of any concrete evidence to prove the allegations made in the Complaint and the contradictory stand taken by the Complainant, Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service as the articles in question were delivered to the addressee/consignee.
9.         In these set of circumstances, it can safely be concluded that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
10.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd Feb., 2021

                         Sd/- 

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”