THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 557 of 14
Date of Institution : 21.10.2014
Date of Decision : 05.05.2015
Rajendra Sharma House No. 91A, Guru Amar Das Avenue, Amritsar Punjab 143001
...Complainant
Vs.
The Managing Director, Trackon Couriers Pvt.Ltd. 59, Cumminuty Centre Naraina Industrial Area, :Phase I, New Delhi-110028
The Manager, Trackon Couriers 62, Hotel Paris, Hide Market, Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : In person
For the opposite parties : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Rajendra Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that a courier had been booked by the complainant's uncle Mr. Kailash Nath Sharma on 11.10.2013 vide receipt No. 352426400 from Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh) to Amritsar. On 15.10.2013 complainant approached the opposite party to check whether the courier had reached but he was shocked to know that the courier had been delivered on 13.10.2013 but it had not been received to him. The complainant filed a complaint with the company's courier care with complaint No. 416409. After two days when the complainant checked the status of the courier , he was told that the courier had already been delivered. Complainant told the opposite party that he still had not received the courier, but the opposite party did not listen the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demaned.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the alleged courier article had been duly delivered by the opposite parties as per the address mentioned . It was submitted that even if the complainant has any grouse, he can approach the civil court. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of courier receipt Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 10.1.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of courier receipt Ex.C-4.
4. Opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh.A.S.Bajwa Branch Manager Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of run sheet dated 16.10.2013 Ex.OP1,2/2.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that Kailash Nath Sharma, uncle of the complainant booked one parcel from Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh) as consignor with the opposite party for delivery of the same to the complainant at Amritsar vide receipt No. 352426400 Ex.C-2 on 11.10.2013. But the opposite party failed to deliver the said parcel to the complainant at Amritsar. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party on 15.10.2013, but the opposite party told the complainant that the said parcel has been delivered on 13.10.2013. The complainant submitted that neither he nor any person on behalf of the complainant received the said parcel from opposite party courier company on 13.10.2013 or on any other date. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party company's customer care with complaint No. 416409. Even then the complainant was told by the opposite party that the courier had already been delivered. The complainant also sent letter in the form of notice dated 10.1.2014 to the opposite party head office, New Delhi, copy of which is Ex.C-3 through the opposite party courier receipt of which is Ex.C-4, but the opposite party did not furnish any reply to the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the alleged courier article had been duly delivered by the opposite party as per the address mentioned. In this regard the opposite party produced run sheet of the opposite party Ex.OP2 dated 16.10.2013. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that as the courier article had already been delivered as per this run sheet Ex.OP2, if the complainant disputes signatures on this run sheet, he can approach the civil court and not the Consumer Fora. In this regard he relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble Uttrakhand State Commission, Dehradun in case Baldev Krishan Goyal Vs. S.S. Enterprises 2014(2) CLT 621. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the uncle of the complainant namely Kailash Nath Sharma booked some articles as consignment with the opposite party on 11.10.2013 vide receipt bearing No. 352426400 dated 13.10.2013 Ex.C-2 for delivery to the complainant at Amritsar. But the opposite parties have failed to deliver the said articles to the complainant at Amritsar. Opposite parties are alleging that the courier articles had been delivered on 13.10.2013 . In this regard they produced run sheet Ex.OP2 dated 16.10.2013 which fully proves that the plea taken by the opposite parties itself in the written version is contradictory as against the documentary evidence because in the written version, opposite parties have taken the plea that the courier articles have been delivered on 13.10.2013, whereas the opposite parties have produced run sheet dated 16.10.2013 which shows the articles delivered to different persons on 16.10.2013. Opposite parties have failed to produce on record any run sheet of 13.10.2013. Apart from this from the persual of this run sheet dated 16.10.2013 Ex.OP2, it has been clearly mentioned against the consignment No. 352426400 of the complainant that the article was not delivered to any person but words “RPO” have been written in the column of “signature, name and seal of consignee”, which fully proves that no signatures have been obtained from any person in this column against the courier articles of the complainant. The opposite parties could not produce affidavit of any person who allegedly delivered the courier articles of the complainant and to whom and also to explain why he did not take the signatures of the person to whom he delivered the said courier articles. What was the relation of that person with the complainant to whom the articles have been delivered. Facts of the case of the ruling cited by the ld.counsel for the opposite party in case Baldev Krishan Goyal as S.S. Enterprises (Supra) are totally different from the facts of the present case because in that case the opposite parties succeeded in proving that the courier articles were delivered and signatures of the person were obtained to whom the courier article was delivered. However, the complainant in that case has disputed the signatures . Here in this case no signatures have been obtained by the person who delivered the courier article to whom as is evident from the run sheet produced by the opposite party dated 16.10.2013 Ex.OP2 . So we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have failed to prove on record that the booked courier articles were delivered to the complainant at Amritsar. As such the opposite parties are certainly in deficiency of service towards the complainant. Consequently we hold that complainant is entitled to compensation.
9. As regards the loss suffered by the complainant, the complainant could not produce any evidence as to which were the articles sent by Kailash Nath Sharma ,uncle of the complainant from Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh) to the complainant at Amritsar vide receipt Ex.C-2 dated 11.10.2013 through the opposite party courier. So we have come to the conclusion that complainant has failed to prove the value of the articles sent by said Kailash Nath Sharma from Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh) to complainant at Amritsar vide receipt Ex.C-2 dated 11.10.2013 through the opposite party courier.
10. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver the courier articles to the complainant, as such the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. 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.
5.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
(Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma )
/R/ Member Member
