Haryana

Karnal

128/2011

Vipin Kumar S/o Rattan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., ICICI Bank Ltd., Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Bhardwaj

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.128 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt. 3.3.2011

                                                               Date of decision: 12.08.2015

 

Vipin Kumar son of Sh.Rattan Lal resident of House No.210, Moti Nagar, behind K.R.Theatre, Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

1.Trackon Couriers Pvt.Ltd. C-143, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.

2.ICICI Bank Ltd. Sector 12, Karnal through its Divisional Branch Manager.

3.Branch office,  Trackon Courier Pvt.Ltd.near Clock Tower, Bus stand Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma……….Member.

 

Present:        Sh.Rajesh Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vikas Dixit  representative of Ops no.1   and 3.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for OP no.2.

ORDER:

‘

                        This complaint has been filed  by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that the complainant got a cheque No.003706 dated 28.6.2010  for Rs.17,506/-  drawn on Yes Bank, Branch  New Delhi,  from  Rudrani Multi Marketing Pvt.Ltd. under the signature of its authorized signatory.  He presented the said cheque to  his banker i.e.  ICICI Bank Karnal for encashment but the cheque was dishonoured and returned to his banker.  After a long time, when he approached his banker , it was revealed that said cheque  alongwith memo was sent him through OP no.1 The branch office of OP no.1 showed the delivery receipt of the said cheque tosome unknown person namely Puneet.  The act and conduct of Ops amounted to imperfection, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment  apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops.  OP no.1 and 3 filed their joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the complaint and  that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OPs  no.1 and 3. The OP no.2, who  was consignor  of the consignment in question had by availing the services of OPs no.1 and 3 had entered into contract  with OPs no.1 and 3 and complainant had   not entered  into contract with  them, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the complaint against them. Grievance of the complainant, if any, is at  the best against OP no.2, who had allegedly booked the Ops no.1 and 3 a  bounced cheque with a memo   meant to be delivered to the complainant. It has further been averred that no.2  never approached the OPs no.1 and 3  regarding the delivery of its consignment   for almost about one year since its booking. The OPs no.1 and 3 were not in a position to comment upon the contents of the same.  The documents relied upon do not in any way relate to OPs no.1 and 3. It has been further asserted that consignment was safely delivered to the complainant, but the complaint has been filed with malafide intention. The other allegations  made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

 

3.                The OP no.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that complainant  doe not fall within the purview of Consumer against OP no.2, as the  matter is of  financial relationship. There was no defficiency in services on the part of OP no.2, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against it. It has further been pleaded that cheque in question was  promptly sent to the issuing bank for encashment and the same was  returned dishonoured.  Immediately, thereafter the cheque was sent through Trackon courier to the complainant.  Therefore, OP no.2 is not liable for any deficiency in service as all the process at its end was completed promptly.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant,   he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.

 

5.                In evidence of OP no.1 and 3, affidavit of Sh.Vikas Dixit Branch Manager Ex.O1 and copy of delivery run sheet Ex.O2 have been filed.

 

6.                In the evidence of OP no.2, affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Manager, Ex.OP2/a has been filed.

 

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

8.                It has been admitted by OP no.1 in the written statement that OP no.2 had booked with the OP no.1 one consignment. As per allegations of the complainant and pleadings of OP no.2, in the written statement, the said consignment contained one dishonoured cheque alongwith memo, which was to be delivered to the complainant. It  is further allegation of the complainant that said consignment was never delivered to him.

 

9.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that OP no.1 in the written statement has not clarified as to whom the consignment booked by the OP no.1 for delivery to the complainant, was delivered.  The complainant in para no.3 of the complainant averred that he approached the OP no.3 branch office of OP no.1, then delivery receipt of the said  cheque to some unknown person namely Puneet was shown to him. OP no.1 has also produced the copy of delivery run sheet Ex.O2, according to which the consignment in question was delivered to one Puneet,  but, neither his parentage nor address, nor mobile number or telephone number has been mentioned. The OP no.1 has led no evidence to establish that Puneet was residing at the same address at which the complainant was residing or that he was related to complainant or was his Neighbourer.  On the other hand, complainant has filed his affidavit to the effect that Puneet was neither known to him nor was his friend nor relative nor Neighbourer. There is no reason to disbelieve his unrebutted statement by way of this affidavit. Under such circumstances, delivery of the consignment to Puneet cannot be considered as delivery to the complainant, by any stretch of imagination.  The consignment was booked by OP no.2, but the same was to be delivered to the complainant, therefore,  on account of non delivery of consignment , complainant was directly affected person and as such a consumer of OP no.1 as OP no.2 had booked the consignment  with the OP no.1 on behalf of the complainant, because the complainant was to pay the charges  to OP no.2  regarding dishonouring of the cheque presented by him. Thus, there was deficiency in services on the part of OP no.1.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to pay the sum of Rs.17506/-  the amount of the cheque to the complainant on account of deficiency in services on its part together with a sum of Rs.5500/- for the harassment and agony caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The OP no.1 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance

 

Announced
dated:12.08.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.Rajesh Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vikas Dixit  representative of Ops no.1   and 3.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for OP no.2.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, to come upon 12.8.2015.

 

 

Announced
dated:6.08.2015                                                                              

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)(Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.Rajesh Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vikas Dixit  representative of Ops no.1   and 3.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for OP no.2.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:12.08.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)(Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.